Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Ultrasound-Guided Transfemoral Access for Coronary Procedures: A Pooled Learning Curve Analysis From the FAUST and UNIVERSAL Trials.

BACKGROUND: The learning curve for new operators performing ultrasound-guided transfemoral access (TFA) remains uncertain. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access With Ultrasound Trial) and UNIVERSAL (Routine Ultrasound Guidance for Vascular Access for Cardiac Procedures) trials, both multicenter randomized controlled trials of 1:1 ultrasound-guided versus non-ultrasound-guided TFA for coronary procedures. Outcomes included the composite of major bleeding or vascular complications and successful common femoral artery cannulation. Participants were stratified by the operators' accrued case volume. We used adjusted repeated-measurement logistic regression, with random intercepts for operator clustering, for comparison against the non-ultrasound-guided TFA group and to model the learning curve. RESULTS: The FAUST and UNIVERSAL trials randomized a total of 1624 patients, of which 810 were randomized to non-ultrasound-guided TFA and 814 to ultrasound-guided TFA (cases 1-10, 391; 11-20, 183; and >20, 240). Participants who had operators who performed >20 ultrasound-guided TFAs had a decreased risk for the primary end point (5/240 [2.1%] versus 64/810 [7.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.09-0.61]) compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. Operators who performed >20 ultrasound-guided procedures had increased odds of successfully cannulating the common femoral artery (224/246 [91.1%] versus 327/382 [85.6%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.08-2.89]) compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. The learning curve plots demonstrated growing competence with increasing accrued cases. CONCLUSIONS: New operators should perform at least 20 ultrasound-guided TFA to decrease access site complications and increase proper cannulation compared with non-ultrasound-guided TFA. Additional accrued cases may lead to increased proficiency. Training programs should consider these findings in the transradial era.

Design and rationale of the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial: A 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial of colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone vs placebo in patients with myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing myocardial infarction (MI) remain at high risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). While low-dose colchicine and spironolactone have been shown to decrease post-MI MACE, more data are required to confirm their safety and efficacy in an unselected post-MI population. Therefore, we initiated the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial to address these uncertainties. METHODS: The CLEAR SYNERGY trial is a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily versus placebo and spironolactone 25 mg daily versus placebo in 7,062 post-MI participants who were within 72 hours of the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We blinded participants, healthcare providers, research personnel, and outcome adjudicators to treatment allocation. The primary outcome for colchicine is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The coprimary outcomes for spironolactone are (1) the composite of the total numbers of cardiovascular death or new or worsening heart failure and (2) the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, new or worsening heart failure, recurrent MI or stroke. We finished recruitment with 7,062 participants from 104 centers in 14 countries on November 8, 2022, and plan to present the results in the fall of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: CLEAR SYNERGY is a large international randomized controlled trial that will inform the effects of low-dose colchicine and spironolactone in largely unselected post-MI patients who undergo PCI. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03048825).

SYNERGY-Everolimus-Eluting Stent With a Bioabsorbable Polymer in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: CLEAR SYNERGY OASIS-9 Registry.

Our objective was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the SYNERGY stent (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The only drug-eluting stent approved for treatment of STEMI by the Food and Drug Administration is the Taxus stent (Boston Scientific) which is no longer commercially available, so further data are needed. The CLEAR (Colchicine and spironolactone in patients with myocardial infarction) SYNERGY stent registry was embedded into a larger randomized trial of patients with STEMI (n = 7,000), comparing colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone versus placebo. The primary outcome for the SYNERGY stent registry is major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as defined by cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or unplanned ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization within 12 months. We estimated a MACE rate of 6.3% at 12 months after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI based on the Thrombectomy vs percutaneous coronary intervention alone in STEMI (TOTAL) trial. Success was defined as upper bound of confidence interval (CI) to be less than the performance goal of 9.45%. Overall, 733 patients were enrolled from 8 countries with a mean age 60 years, 19.4% diabetes mellitus, 41.3% anterior MI, and median door-to-balloon time of 72 minutes. The MACE rate was 4.8% (95% CI 3.2 to 6.3%) at 12 months which met the success criteria against performance goal of 9.45%. The rates of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, or target vessel revascularization were 2.7%, 1.9%, 1.0%, respectively. The rates of acute definite stent thrombosis were 0.3%, subacute 0.4%, late 0.4%, and cumulative stent thrombosis of 1.1% at 12 months. In conclusion, the SYNERGY stent in STEMI performed well and was successful compared with the performance goal based on previous trials.

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology 2023 Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Use of Antiplatelet Therapy.

Antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the foundation of treatment and prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Selecting the optimal APT strategies to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, while balancing bleeding risk, requires ongoing review of clinical trials. Appended, the focused update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology guidelines for the use of APT provides recommendations on the following topics: (1) use of acetylsalicylic acid in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; (2) dual APT (DAPT) duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk; (3) potent DAPT (P2Y12 inhibitor) choice in patients who present with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and possible DAPT de-escalation strategies after PCI; (4) choice and duration of DAPT in ACS patients who are medically treated without revascularization; (5) pretreatment with DAPT (P2Y12 inhibitor) before elective or nonelective coronary angiography; (6) perioperative and longer-term APT management in patients who require coronary artery bypass grafting surgery; and (7) use of APT in patients with atrial fibrillation who require oral anticoagulation after PCI or medically managed ACS. These recommendations are all on the basis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted as part of the development of these guidelines, provided in the Supplementary Material.

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE).

BACKGROUND: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown. METHODS: COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months). RESULTS: Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Clinically Driven Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial.

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12 months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p = 0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p = 0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p = 0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242).

Complete Revascularization Versus Culprit-Lesion-Only PCI in STEMI Patients With Diabetes and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Results From the COMPLETE Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the COMPLETE trial (Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization to Treat Multivessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI), a strategy of complete revascularization reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes have a worse prognosis following STEMI. We evaluated the consistency of the effects of complete revascularization in patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: The COMPLETE trial randomized a strategy of complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (guideline-directed medical therapy alone). In prespecified analyses, treatment effects were determined in patients with and without diabetes on the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and the second coprimary outcome of cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. Interaction P values were calculated to evaluate whether there was a differential treatment effect in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 4041 patients enrolled in the COMPLETE trial, 787 patients (19.5%) had diabetes. The median HbA1c (glycated hemoglobin) was 7.7% in the diabetes group and 5.7% in the nondiabetes group. Complete revascularization consistently reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.59-1.29]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), with no evidence of a differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.36). Similarly, for the second coprimary outcome, no differential treatment effect (interaction P=0.27) of complete revascularization was found in patients with diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43-0.87]) and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.39-0.60]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over a culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.

Cardiac Interventions in Patients With Active, Advanced Solid and Hematologic Malignancies: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review.

Invasive cardiac interventions are recommended to treat ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, multivessel coronary disease, severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, and cardiomyopathy. These recommendations are based on randomized controlled trials that historically included few individuals with active, advanced malignancies. Advanced malignancies represent a significant competing risk for mortality, and there is limited evidence to inform the risks and benefits of invasive cardiac interventions in affected patients. We review the benefit conferred by invasive cardiac interventions; the periprocedural considerations; the contemporary survival expectations of patients across several types of active, advanced malignancy; and the literature on cardiovascular interventions in these populations. Our objective is to develop a rational framework to guide clinical recommendations on the use of invasive cardiac interventions in patients with active, advanced cancer.

No-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an angiographic core laboratory analysis of the TOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy to prevent no-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to examine the effect of thrombectomy on the outcome of no-reflow in key subgroups and the adverse clinical outcomes associated with no-reflow. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the TOTAL Trial, a randomised trial of 10,732 patients comparing thrombectomy versus PCI alone. This analysis utilised the angiographic data of 1,800 randomly selected patients. RESULTS: No-reflow was diagnosed in 196 of 1,800 eligible patients (10.9%). No-reflow occurred in 95/891 (10.7%) patients randomised to thrombectomy compared with 101/909 (11.1%) in the PCI-alone arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.28; p-value=0.76). In the subgroup of patients who underwent direct stenting, those randomised to thrombectomy compared with PCI alone experienced less no-reflow (19/371 [5.1%] vs 21/216 [9.7%], OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96). In patients who did not undergo direct stenting, there was no difference between the groups (64/504 [12.7%] vs 75/686 [10.9%)], OR 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.69; interaction p-value=0.02). No-reflow patients had a significantly increased risk of experiencing the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA Class IV heart failure) at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio 1.70, 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; p-value=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI treated by PCI, thrombectomy did not reduce no-reflow in all patients but may be synergistic with direct stenting. No-reflow is associated with increased adverse clinical outcomes.

The role of endothelial shear stress, shear stress gradient, and plaque topography in plaque erosion.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plaque erosion is a common underlying cause of acute coronary syndromes. The role of endothelial shear stress (ESS) and endothelial shear stress gradient (ESSG) in plaque erosion remains unknown. We aimed to determine the role of ESS metrics and maximum plaque slope steepness in plaques with erosion versus stable plaques. METHODS: This analysis included 46 patients/plaques from TOTAL and COMPLETE trials and Brigham and Women's Hospital's database who underwent angiography and OCT. Plaques were divided into those with erosion (n = 24) and matched stable coronary plaques (n = 22). Angiographic views were used to generate a 3-D arterial reconstruction, with centerlines merged from angiography and OCT pullback. Local ESS metrics were assessed by computational fluid dynamics. Among plaque erosions, the up- and down-slope (Δ lumen area/frame) was calculated for each culprit plaque. RESULTS: Compared with stable plaque controls, plaques with an erosion were associated with higher max ESS (8.3 ± 4.8 vs. 5.0 ± 1.9 Pa, p = 0.02) and max ESSG any direction (9.2 ± 7.5 vs. 4.3 ± 3.11 Pa/mm, p = 0.005). Proximal erosion was associated with a steeper plaque upslope while distal erosion with a steeper plaque downslope. Max ESS and Max ESSG any direction were independent factors in the development of plaque erosion (OR 1.32, 95%CI 1.06-1.65, p = 0.014; OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.45, p = 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In plaques with similar luminal stenosis, plaque erosion was strongly associated with higher ESS, ESS gradients, and plaque slope as compared with stable plaques. These data support that ESS and slope metrics play a key role in the development of plaque erosion and may help prognosticate individual plaques at risk for future erosion.

Biolimus-eluting vs. other limus-eluting stents in NSTE-ACS: A pooled analysis of GLASSY and TWILIGHT.

BACKGROUND: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) may be associated with better outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to other current-generation limus-eluting stents (LES). AIMS: To compare BP-BES with other current-generation LES in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We pooled individual data of Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS patients from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). The BP-BES groups consisted mostly of GLASSY patients, while the control group (other current-generation LES) included exclusively TWILIGHT patients. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis; the key secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF). To account for trial design differences, outcomes were assessed at 3 months (short-term) and between 3 and 12 months (long-term) after PCI and subsequently pooled to estimate the 12-month hazards. RESULTS: Of 7107 and 6053 NSTE-ACS patients included in the short- and long-term analysis, 32.7% and 36.5% received a BP-BES, respectively. Risk of MACE associated with BP-BES versus other LES was similar at short-term (1.1% vs 1.3%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.53-1.38), lower at long-term (1.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.72), and lower in the entire 12-month period (pooled adjusted HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.45-0.82). The cumulative 12-month risk of TVF was reduced with BP-BES (adjusted HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.70). CONCLUSION: BP-BES was associated with lower 12-month risks of MACE and TVF compared to other current generation LES among NSTE-ACS patients treated with abbreviated or standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These non-randomized findings are hypothesis-generating. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: Differences in clinical outcomes may exist between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and other current-generation limus-eluting stent (LES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We pooled individual data of about 7000 Non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with ticagrelor with or without aspirin from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). BP-BES patients derived very largely from GLASSY and other LES patients from TWILIGHT. In this population, BP-BES compared to other current generation LES, were associated with a lower 12-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and target-vessel failure.

Ultrasound-guided femoral access in patients with vascular closure devices: a prespecified analysis of the randomised UNIVERSAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether ultrasound (US)-guided femoral access compared to femoral access without US guidance decreases access site complications in patients receiving a vascular closure device (VCD) is unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare the safety of VCD in patients undergoing US-guided versus non-US-guided femoral arterial access for coronary procedures. METHODS: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the UNIVERSAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled trial of 1:1 US-guided femoral access versus non-US-guided femoral access, stratified for planned VCD use, for coronary procedures on a background of fluoroscopic landmarking. The primary endpoint was a composite of major Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 bleeding and vascular complications at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 621 patients, 328 (52.8%) received a VCD (86% ANGIO-SEAL, 14% ProGlide). In patients who received a VCD, those randomised to US-guided femoral access compared to non-US-guided femoral access experienced a reduction in major bleeding or vascular complications (20/170 [11.8%] vs 37/158 [23.4%], odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.82). In patients who did not receive a VCD, there was no difference between the US- and non-US-guided femoral access groups, respectively (20/141 [14.2%] vs 13/152 [8.6%], OR 1.76, 95% CI: 0.80-4.03; interaction p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving a VCD after coronary procedures, US-guided femoral access was associated with fewer bleeding and vascular complications compared to femoral access without US guidance. US guidance for femoral access may be particularly beneficial when VCD are used.

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients with anaemia undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy among high-risk patients with anaemia undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin <13 g/dL for men and <12 g/dL for women. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.Out of 6828 patients, 1329 (19.5%) had anaemia and were more likely to have comorbidities, multivessel disease, and to experience bleeding or ischaemic complications than non-anaemic patients. Among anaemic patients, BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding occurred less frequently with ticagrelor monotherapy than with ticagrelor plus aspirin [6.4% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.88; P = 0.009]; the rate of the key secondary endpoint was similar in the two arms (5.2% vs. 4.8%; HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.66-1.74; P = 0.779). These effects were consistent in patients without anaemia (interaction P values 0.671 and 0.835, respectively). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduced risk of clinically relevant bleeding without any increase in ischaemic events irrespective of anaemia status (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242).

Clinical Significance of Culprit Vessel Occlusion in Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

In patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), total occlusion of the culprit coronary artery (OCA) is not uncommon. We sought to determine the frequency and clinical impact of OCA at presentation in a large population of patients presenting with NSTEMI and who underwent systematic early invasive management. We performed a post hoc analysis of the TAO (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome with Otamixaban) randomized trial, which included patients with NSTEMI with systematic coronary angiography within 72 hours. We compared the baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients according to whether the culprit vessel was occluded (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade [TFG] 0 to 1) or patent (TFG 2 to 3) at presentation. A total of 7,473 patients with NSTEMI with only 1 culprit lesion identified were enrolled, of whom 1,702 patients had OCA (22.8%). In the OCA group, coronary angiography was performed earlier (18 ± 15 vs 20 ± 16 hours, p <0.01), the culprit lesion was less likely to be the left anterior descending artery (26.5% vs 41.4%, p <0.001) but with more frequent angiographic thrombus (49.9% vs 22.7%, p <0.01). Culprit artery percutaneous coronary intervention during the index procedure was also more frequent (88.5% vs 78.1%, p <0.001) but with a lower rate of TFG grade 3 after the procedure and higher subsequent peak troponin I levels (8.3 ± 13.6 µg/L vs 5.6 ± 11.9 µg/L, p <0.001). At day 7, patients with OCA had higher mortality, and this persisted after adjustment on gender, Grace risk score, cardiovascular risk factors, and culprit vessel location (0.9% vs 0.4%, p = 0.02; adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 5.29, p = 0.01). The absolute difference of mortality was maintained through 30 days: 1.2% versus 0.8%, p = 0.13; OR: 1.72, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.05, but mortality rates were similar by 180 days: 1.5% versus 1.6%, p = 0.8, adjusted OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.80, p = 0.66. In conclusion, a significant proportion of patients with NSTEMI have a totally occluded culprit vessel at presentation. These patients are at higher risk of early mortality but not at 6 months.