| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Frigoli, Enrico, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and rationale of the Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Standard DAPT Regimen (MASTER DAPT) Study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 209, s. 97-105
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients with coronary artery disease treated with newer-generation drug-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stents remains unclear. Design MASTER DAPT (clinicaltrial.gov NCT03023020) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing an abbreviated versus a standard duration of antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable polymer-coated Ultimaster (TANSEI) sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in approximately 4,300 HBR patients recruited from >= 100 interventional cardiology centers globally. After a mandatory 30-day dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) run-in phase, patients are randomized to (a) a single antiplatelet regimen until study completion or up to 5 months in patients with clinically indicated oral anticoagulation (experimental 1-month DAPT group) or (b) continue DAPT for at least 5 months in patients without or 2 in patients with concomitant indication to oral anticoagulation, followed by a single antiplatelet regimen (standard antipkitelet regimen). With a final sample size of 4,300 patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the abbreviated antiplatelet regimen with respect to the net adverse clinical and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events composite end points and if satisfied for the superiority of abbreviated as compared to standard antiplatelet therapy duration in terms of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Study end points will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. Conclusions The MASTER DAPT study is the first randomized controlled trial aiming at ascertaining the optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy in HBR patients treated with sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer-coated stent implantation.
|
|
| 5. |
- Huber, Kurt, et al.
(författare)
-
Antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents in acute coronary syndromes : What is the current status and what does the future hold?
- 2014
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 168:5, s. 611-621
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Mortality and morbidity in acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), caused principally by plaque erosion or rupture leading to thrombus formation and myocardial ischemia, have been reduced by a combination of antithrombotic agents (antiplatelet drugs and anticoagulants) and early revascularization. Aspirin is the foundation antiplatelet agent. New P2Y(12) receptor inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) have clear benefits compared with clopidogrel for dual antiplatelet therapy, and cangrelor or vorapaxar, a thrombin receptor inhibitor, may be of value in specific settings. Anticoagulation uses 1 of 4 choices: bivalirudin, unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, and fondaparinux. Moreover, some patients (such as those who have chronic atrial fibrillation) require triple therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, plus an anticoagulant, frequently a vitamin K antagonist. New oral anticoagulants have been shown to be at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists in atrial fibrillation and led to fewer bleeding complications. Finally, the combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, and low-dose rivaroxaban has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency (but not the Food and Drug Administration) for secondary prevention after ACS. Several strategies have been developed to balance the potential benefit of antithrombotic therapy against the risk of bleeding complications, for example, radial access in coronary angiography or restricted use of combination therapy, and others are under investigation, such as discontinuation of aspirin. This overview summarizes the current status of antithrombotic therapy in ACS and describes strategies currently explored to optimize its benefit/risk ratio.
|
|
| 6. |
- Wallentin, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
How can we optimize the processes of care for acute coronary syndromes to improve outcomes?
- 2014
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 168:5, s. 622-631
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), either ST-elevation myocardial infarction or non ST-elevation ACS, are still one of the most common cardiac emergencies with substantial morbidity and mortality. The availability of evidence-based treatments, such as early and intense platelet inhibition and anticoagulation, and timely reperfusion and revascularization, has substantially improved outcomes in patients with ACS. The implementation of streamlined processes of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non ST-elevation ACS over the last decade including both appropriate tools, especially cardiac troponin, for rapid diagnosis and risk stratification and for decision support, and the widespread availability of modern antithrombotic and interventional treatments, have reduced morbidity and mortality to unprecedented low levels. These changes in the process of care require a synchronized approach, and research using a team-based strategy and effective regional networks has allowed healthcare systems to provide modern treatments for most patients with ACS. There are still areas needing improvement, such as the delivery of care to people in rural areas or with delayed time to treatment.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gorenek, Bulent, et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiac arrhythmias in acute coronary syndromes : position paper from the joint EHRA, ACCA, and EAPCI task force
- 2014
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 16, s. 1655-1673
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is known that myocardial ischaemia and infarction leads to severe metabolic and electrophysiological changes that induce silent or symptomatic life-threatening arrhythmias. Sudden cardiac death is most often attributed to this pathophysiology, but many patients survive the early stage of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) reaching a medical facility where the management of ischaemia and infarction must include continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) and hemodynamic monitoring, and a prompt therapeutic response to incident sustained arrhythmias. During the last decade, the hospital locations in which arrhythmias are most relevant have changed to include the cardiac catheterization laboratory, since the preferred management of early acute ACS is generally interventional in nature. However, a large proportion of patients are still managed medically.Both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias may occur in the setting of ACS and sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VAs) may be associated with circulatory collapse and require immediate treatment. Atrial fibrillation (AF) may also warrant urgent treatment when a fast ventricular rate is associated with hemodynamic deterioration. The management of other arrhythmias is also based largely on symptoms rather than to avert progression to more serious arrhythmias. Prophylactic antiarrhythmic management strategies have largely been discouraged.Although the mainstay of antiarrhythmic therapy used to rely on antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), particularly sodium channel blockers and amiodarone, their use has now declined, since clinical evidence to support such treatment has never been convincing. Therapy for acute coronary syndrome and arrhythmia management are now based increasingly on invasive approaches. The changes in the clinical approach to arrhythmia management in ACS have been so substantial that the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions established a task force to define the current position.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Angiolillo, Dominick J., et al.
(författare)
-
International Expert Consensus on Switching Platelet P2Y(12) Receptor-Inhibiting Therapies
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 136:20, s. 1955-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y(12) inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y(12) inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y(12) inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y(12) inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y(12) inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y(12) inhibitors.
|
|
| 10. |
- Bikdeli, Behnood, et al.
(författare)
-
Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI : Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : American Heart Association. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 148:16, s. 1207-1219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI.METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized >= 1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding.RESULTS: A total of 12155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.
|
|
