| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Alfredsson, Joakim, et al.
(författare)
-
Risks and Benefits of Triple Oral Anti-Thrombotic Therapies After Acute Coronary Syndromes and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Drug Safety. - : Adis / Springer Verlag (Germany). - 0114-5916 .- 1179-1942. ; 38:5, s. 481-491
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The key pathophysiological process underlying symptomatic coronary artery disease, including acute coronary syndromes (ACS), is usually a rupture or an erosion of an atherosclerotic plaque, followed by platelet activation and subsequent thrombus formation. Early clinical trials showed benefit with long-term aspirin treatment, and later-based on large clinical trials-dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT), initially with clopidogrel, and more recently with prasugrel or ticagrelor, has become the established treatment in the post-ACS setting and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Treatment with DAPT is recommended for both ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation ACS, as well as after PCI with stenting, in American and European clinical guidelines. Notwithstanding the benefits observed with DAPT, including third-generation P2Y(12) receptor inhibitors plus aspirin, ACS patients remain at high risk for a recurrent cardiovascular event, suggesting that other treatment strategies, including the addition of a third oral anti-platelet agent or a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) to standard DAPT regimens, may provide additional benefit for post-ACS patients and for patients undergoing PCI. Adding a third anti-thrombotic agent to DAPT after an ACS event or a PCI procedure has been shown to have modest benefit in terms of ischemic event reduction, but has consistently been associated with increased bleeding complications. Therefore, the quest to optimize anti-thrombotic therapies post-ACS and post-PCI continues unabated but is tempered by the historical experiences to date that indicate that careful patient and dose selection will be critical features of future randomized trials.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hess, Connie N., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship Between Cancer and Cardiovascular Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980 .- 2047-9980. ; 4:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Cardiovascular disease and cancer increasingly coexist, yet relationships between cancer and long-term cardiovascular outcomes post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well studied. Methods and Results-We examined stented PCI patients at Duke (1996-2010) using linked data from the Duke Information Systems for Cardiovascular Care and the Duke Tumor Registry (a cancer treatment registry). Our primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included composite cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and all-cause mortality. We used adjusted cause-specific hazard models to examine outcomes among cancer patients (cancer treatment pre-PCI) versus controls (no cancer treatment pre-PCI). Cardiovascular mortality was explored in a cancer subgroup with recent (within 1 year pre-PCI) cancer and in post-PCI cancer patients using post-PCI cancer as a time-dependent variable. Among 15 008 patients, 3.3% (n=496) were cancer patients. Observed rates of 14-year cardiovascular mortality (31.4% versus 27.7%, P=0.31) and composite cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization (51.1% versus 55.8%, P=0.37) were similar for cancer versus control groups; all-cause mortality rates were higher (79.7% versus 49.3%, P<0.01). Adjusted risk of cardiovascular mortality was similar for cancer patients versus controls (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20) and for patients with versus without recent cancer (hazard ratio 1.46; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.33). Post-PCI cancer, present in 4.3% (n=647) of patients, was associated with cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.51; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.03). Conclusions-Cancer history was present in a minority of PCI patients but was not associated with worse long-term cardiovascular outcomes. Further investigation into PCI outcomes in this population is warranted.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mahaffey, Kenneth W., et al.
(författare)
-
Meta-Analysis of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Acute Coronary Syndromes : Incidence, Predictors, and Clinical Outcomes
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980 .- 2047-9980. ; 4:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Little is known about the incidence, predictors, or outcomes of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS). We aimed to determine the incidence and timing of ICH, characterize the location of ICH, and identify independent baseline predictors of ICH in NSTE ACS patients. Methods and Results-We pooled patient-level data from 4 contemporary antithrombotic therapy trials. Multivariable modeling identified independent predictors of ICH. ICHs were adjudicated by a clinical events committee. Of 37 815 patients, 135 (0.4%) had an ICH. The median (25th, 75th percentiles) follow-up was 332 (184, 434) days but differed across trials. Locations of ICH were intracerebral (50%), subdural (31%), subarachnoid (18.5%), and intraventricular (11%). Independent predictors of ICH were older age (HR per 10 years, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.91); prior stroke/transient ischemic attack; HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.35), higher systolic blood pressure; HR per 10 mm Hg increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.18), and larger number of antithrombotic agents (HR per each additional agent, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.49 to 2.84). Of all ICHs, 45 (33%) were fatal. Conclusions-In patients with NSTE ACS enrolled in recent clinical trials of antithrombotic therapies, ICH was uncommon. Patients with older age, prior transient ischemic attack/stroke, higher systolic blood pressure, or larger number of antithrombotic agents were at increased risk. One-third of patients with ICH died. These data may be useful to trialists and data and safety monitoring committees for trial conduct and monitoring.
|
|
