Aspirin versus Clopidogrel Monotherapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Follow-up of the STOPDAPT-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There was no previous trial comparing aspirin monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy following short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: In the STOPDAPT-3, patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or high bleeding risk (HBR) were randomly assigned to either 1-month DAPT with aspirin and prasugrel followed by aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group) or 1-month prasugrel monotherapy followed by clopidogrel monotherapy (clopidogrel group). This secondary analysis compared aspirin monotherapy with clopidogrel monotherapy by the 30-day landmark analysis. The co-primary endpoints were the cardiovascular endpoint defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischaemic stroke, and the bleeding endpoint defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5. RESULTS: Of 6002 assigned patients, 5833 patients (aspirin group: N = 2920 and clopidogrel group: N = 2913) were included in the 30-day landmark analysis. Median age was 73 (interquartile range 64-80) years, women 23.4%, ACS 74.6%, and HBR 54.1%. The assigned monotherapy was continued at 1 year in 87.5% and 87.2% in the aspirin and clopidogrel groups, respectively. The incidence rates beyond 30 days and up to 1 year were similar between the aspirin and clopidogrel groups for both cardiovascular endpoint (4.5 and 4.5 per 100 person-year, hazard ratio [HR] 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.30], P = .97), and bleeding endpoint (2.0 and 1.9, HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.69-1.52], P = .92). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin monotherapy compared to clopidogrel monotherapy was associated with similar cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes beyond 1 month and up to 1 year after PCI with DES.

Aspirin-Free Strategy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Oral Anticoagulation: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis From the STOPDAPT-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of aspirin-free strategy on bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) have not been fully elucidated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on the use of OAC, including vitamin K antagonist and direct oral anticoagulants, within 7 days before percutaneous coronary intervention in the STOPDAPT-3 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy-3) trial, which randomly compared prasugrel monotherapy (2984 patients) to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with prasugrel and aspirin (2982 patients) in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. The coprimary end points were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. Among 5966 study patients, there were 530 patients (8.9%) with OAC (no aspirin: N=248, and DAPT: N=282) and 5436 patients (91.1%) without OAC (no aspirin: N=2736, and DAPT: N=2700). Regardless of the use of OAC, the effects of no aspirin compared with DAPT were not significant for the bleeding end point (OAC: 4.45% and 4.27%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 [95% CI, 0.46-2.35]; no-OAC: 4.47% and 4.75%, HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.20]; P for interaction=0.82), and for the cardiovascular end point (OAC: 4.84% and 3.20%, HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.64-3.62]; no-OAC: 4.06% and 3.74%, HR, 1.09 [95% CI 0.83-1.42]; P for interaction =0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The no-aspirin strategy compared with the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of the use of OAC. There was a numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events in patients with OAC.

Post-procedural Anticoagulation With Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insight from the STOPDAPT-3 Trial.

The current guidelines for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) discourage the use of anticoagulation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without specific indications, although the recommendation is not well supported by evidence. In this post hoc analysis of the ShorT and OPtimal Duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy-3 (STOPDAPT-3) trial, 30-day outcomes were compared between the 2 groups with and without post-PCI heparin administration among patients with ACS who did not receive mechanical support devices. The co-primary end points were the bleeding end point, defined as the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding, and the cardiovascular end point, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke. Among 4,088 patients with ACS, 2,339 patients (57.2%) received post-PCI heparin. The proportion of patients receiving post-PCI heparin was higher among those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with others (72.3% and 38.8%, p <0.001), and among patients with intraprocedural adverse angiographic findings compared with those without (67.6% and 47.5%, p <0.001). Post-PCI heparin compared with no post-PCI heparin was associated with a significantly increased risk of the bleeding end point (4.75% and 2.52%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.46, p = 0.007) and a numerically increased risk of the cardiovascular end point (3.16% and 1.72%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 2.46, p = 0.06). Higher hourly dose or total doses of heparin were also associated with higher incidence of both bleeding and cardiovascular events within 30 days. In conclusion, post-PCI anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin was frequently implemented in patients with ACS. Post-PCI heparin use was associated with harm in terms of increased bleeding without the benefit of reducing cardiovascular events. Trial identifier: STOPDAPT-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04609111.

Prognostic significance of baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients undergoing coronary revascularization; a report from the CREDO-Kyoto registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of very low baseline levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on patients with coronary artery disease remains unclear. METHOD: We enrolled 39,439 patients of the pooled population from the CREDO-Kyoto registries Cohorts 1, 2, and 3. The study population consisted of 33,133 patients who had undergone their first coronary revascularization. We assessed the risk for mortality and cardiovascular events according to quintiles of the baseline LDL-C levels. RESULTS: Patients in the very low LDL-C quintile (<85 mg/dL) had more comorbidities than those in the other quintiles. Lower LDL-C levels were strongly associated with anemia, thrombocytopenia, and end-stage renal disease. The cumulative 4-year incidence of all-cause death increased as LDL-C levels decreased (very low: 19.4 %, low: 14.5 %, intermediate: 11.1 %, high: 10.0 %, and very high: 9.2 %; p < 0.001), which was driven by both the early and late events. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, the adjusted risks of the very low and low LDL-C quintiles relative to the intermediate LDL-C quintile remained significant for all-cause death (very low: HR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.16-1.44, p < 0.001; low: HR 1.15, 95 % CI 1.03-1.29, p = 0.01). The excess adjusted risks of the lowest LDL-C quintile relative to the intermediate LDL-C quintile were significant for clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular death (HR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.01-1.35), non-cardiovascular death (HR 1.35, 95 % CI 1.15-1.60), sudden death (HR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.01-2.06), and heart failure admission (HR 1.11 95 % CI 1.01-1.22), while there was no excess risk for the lowest LDL-C quintile relative to the intermediate LDL-C quintile for myocardial infarction and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Lower baseline LDL-C levels were associated with more comorbidities and a significantly higher risk of death, regardless of cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular causes, in patients who underwent coronary revascularization.

Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.Methods and Results: We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

An Aspirin-Free Strategy for Immediate Treatment Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There was no study evaluating the effects of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on complex PCI in the STOPDAPT-3 (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3), which randomly compared low-dose prasugrel (3.75 mg/d) monotherapy to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with low-dose prasugrel and aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or a target of chronic total occlusion. The coprimary endpoints were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 5,966 study patients, there were 1,230 patients (20.6%) with complex PCI. Regardless of complex PCI, the effects of no aspirin relative to DAPT were not significant for the coprimary bleeding (complex PCI: 5.30% vs 3.70%; HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18 and noncomplex PCI: 4.26% vs 4.97%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65-1.11; P = 0.24; P for interaction = 0.08) and cardiovascular (complex PCI: 5.78% vs 5.93%; HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.62-1.55; P = 0.92 and noncomplex PCI: 3.70% vs 3.10%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.88-1.63; P = 0.25; P for interaction = 0.48) endpoints without significant interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the aspirin-free strategy relative to standard DAPT for the cardiovascular and major bleeding events were not different regardless of complex PCI. (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3 [STOPDAPT-3]; NCT04609111).

Atrial fibrillation-induced cardiomyopathy presenting with bilateral intermittent claudication associated with intracardiac thrombi.

Systemic thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually caused by thrombi in the left atrial appendage and acute onset. We experienced an unusual case of a woman in her 60s who presented to the outpatient district having bilateral intermittent claudication for more than 1 month, which turned out to be multiple thromboembolism from asymptomatic AF with tachycardia. She was also complicated with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction, consistent with arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM), along with left atrial and left ventricular thrombi and thromboembolism in multiple organs. Rate control with beta-blockers was not effective. With the administration of amiodarone after adequate anticoagulation therapy, she returned to sinus rhythm, and the ejection fraction was restored. This case is instructive in that AiCM with AF can cause thrombosis in the left ventricle, and the patient may present with worsening intermittent claudication as a result of systemic embolism.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding. Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Aspirin-free strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome based on the subtypes of acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk: the STOPDAPT-3 trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High bleeding risk (HBR) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subtypes are critical in determining bleeding and cardiovascular event risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 4476 ACS patients enrolled in the STOPDAPT-3, where the no-aspirin and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies after PCI were randomly compared, the pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on HBR/non-HBR and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). The co-primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5, and the co-primary cardiovascular endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischaemic stroke at 1 month. Irrespective of the subgroups, the effect of no-aspirin compared with DAPT was not significant for the bleeding endpoint (HBR [N = 1803]: 7.27 and 7.91%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.28; non-HBR [N = 2673]: 3.40 and 3.65%, HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62-1.39; Pinteraction = 0.94; STEMI [N = 2553]: 6.58 and 6.56%, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.35; NSTE-ACS [N = 1923]: 2.94 and 3.64%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.32; Pinteraction = 0.45), and for the cardiovascular endpoint (HBR: 7.87 and 5.75%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97-1.99; non-HBR: 2.56 and 2.67%, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60-1.53; Pinteraction = 0.22; STEMI: 6.07 and 5.46%, HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81-1.54; NSTE-ACS: 3.03 and 1.71%, HR 1.78, 95% CI 0.97-3.27; Pinteraction = 0.18). CONCLUSION: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, the no-aspirin strategy compared with the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of HBR and ACS subtypes. The numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events was observed in patients with HBR and in patients with NSTE-ACS.

Preferred monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy following short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, no studies have compared P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin monotherapy following short-term DAPT. We aimed to compare available strategies for DAPT duration and post-DAPT antiplatelet monotherapy following PCI. METHODS: Seven DAPT strategies [ticagrelor or clopidogrel following 1-month DAPT, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT, aspirin following 3-6 months of DAPT (reference strategy), aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor following 6-18-months of DAPT, and DAPT for ≥18 months] were compared using a network meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was trial-defined major or minor bleeding. RESULTS: Our analysis identified 25 eligible RCTs, including 89,371 patients who underwent PCI. Overall, none of the strategies negatively affected the primary efficacy outcomes. For primary bleeding outcomes, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes (HR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.57-0.95). Clopidogrel following 1-month DAPT was also associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes (HR 0.54; 95 % CI 0.34-0.85), however, the strategy was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. Similar trends were observed among patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with aspirin monotherapy following short-term DAPT, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes without increasing any ischemic outcomes.

Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether clopidogrel is better suited than aspirin as the long-term antiplatelet monotherapy following dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: This study compared clopidogrel monotherapy following 1 month of DAPT (clopidogrel group) with aspirin monotherapy following 12 months of DAPT (aspirin group) after PCI for 5 years. METHODS: STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy 2) is a multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan. Patients who underwent PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion either to clopidogrel or aspirin groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or definite stent thrombosis) or major bleeding (TIMI major or minor bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,005 study patients (age: 68.6 ± 10.7 years; women: 22.3%; acute coronary syndrome: 38.3%), 2,934 patients (97.6%) completed the 5-year follow-up (adherence to the study drugs at 395 days: 84.7% and 75.9%). The clopidogrel group compared with the aspirin group was noninferior but not superior for the primary endpoint (11.75% and 13.57%, respectively; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-1.05; Pnoninferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.13), whereas it was superior for the cardiovascular outcomes (8.61% and 11.05%, respectively; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; P = 0.03) and not superior for major bleeding (4.44% and 4.92%, respectively; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64-1.25; P = 0.51). By the 1-year landmark analysis, clopidogrel was numerically, but not significantly, superior to aspirin for cardiovascular events (6.79% and 8.68%, respectively; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.59-1.01; P = 0.06) without difference in major bleeding (3.99% and 3.32%, respectively; HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.84-1.81; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel might be an attractive alternative to aspirin with a borderline ischemic benefit beyond 1 year after PCI.

An Aspirin-Free Versus Dual Antiplatelet Strategy for Coronary Stenting: STOPDAPT-3 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding rates on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) within 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Aspirin-free strategy might result in lower bleeding early after PCI without increasing cardiovascular events, but its efficacy and safety have not yet been proven in randomized trials. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6002 patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk just before PCI either to prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) monotherapy or to DAPT with aspirin (81-100 mg/day) and prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) after loading of 20 mg of prasugrel in both groups. The coprimary end points were major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) for noninferiority with a relative 50% margin. RESULTS: The full analysis set population consisted of 5966 patients (no-aspirin group, 2984 patients; DAPT group, 2982 patients; age, 71.6±11.7 years; men, 76.6%; acute coronary syndrome, 75.0%). Within 7 days before randomization, aspirin alone, aspirin with P2Y12 inhibitor, oral anticoagulants, and intravenous heparin infusion were given in 21.3%, 6.4%, 8.9%, and 24.5%, respectively. Adherence to the protocol-specified antiplatelet therapy was 88% in both groups at 1 month. At 1 month, the no-aspirin group was not superior to the DAPT group for the coprimary bleeding end point (4.47% and 4.71%; hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.75-1.20]; Psuperiority=0.66). The no-aspirin group was noninferior to the DAPT group for the coprimary cardiovascular end point (4.12% and 3.69%; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.87-1.45]; Pnoninferiority=0.01). There was no difference in net adverse clinical outcomes and each component of coprimary cardiovascular end point. There was an excess of any unplanned coronary revascularization (1.05% and 0.57%; hazard ratio, 1.83 [95%CI, 1.01-3.30]) and subacute definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.58% and 0.17%; hazard ratio, 3.40 [95% CI, 1.26-9.23]) in the no-aspirin group compared with the DAPT group. CONCLUSIONS: The aspirin-free strategy using low-dose prasugrel compared with the DAPT strategy failed to attest superiority for major bleeding within 1 month after PCI but was noninferior for cardiovascular events within 1 month after PCI. However, the aspirin-free strategy was associated with a signal suggesting an excess of coronary events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04609111.

In-hospital outcomes after SAVR or TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

There were no data comparing the in-hospital outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Japan. Among consecutive patients with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 in the CURRENT AS Registry-2, we identified 1714 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (TAVI group: 1134 patients, and SAVR group: 580 patients). Patients in the TAVI group were much older (84.4 versus 73.6 years, P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities than those in the SAVR group. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (0.6% versus 2.2%). After excluding patients with dialysis, in-hospital death rate was very low and comparable in the TAVI and SAVR groups (0.6% versus 0.8%). The rates of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation during index hospitalization were higher after SAVR than after TAVI (72% versus 20%, and 26% versus 4.6%, respectively), while the rate of pacemaker implantation was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (8.1% versus 2.4%). Regarding the echocardiographic data at discharge, the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch was lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (moderate: 9.0% versus 26%, and severe: 2.6% versus 4.8%). In this real-world data in Japan, TAVI compared with SAVR was chosen in much older patients with more comorbidities with severe AS. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group.

Single-Session Versus Staged Multivessel Optimal IVUS-Guided PCI in Patients With CCS or NSTE-ACS.

Background: There are no studies comparing single-session vs staged multivessel intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Objectives: The authors aimed to compare single-session vs staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI in patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS. Methods: The OPTIVUS-Complex PCI study multivessel cohort was a prospective multicenter single-arm trial enrolling 1,021 patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS undergoing multivessel PCI including left anterior descending coronary artery using IVUS aiming to meet the prespecified OPTIVUS criteria for optimal stent expansion. We compared single-session vs staged multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularization. Results: There were 246 patients (24.1%) undergoing single-session multivessel PCI, and 775 patients (75.9%) undergoing staged multivessel PCI. There was a wide variation in the prevalence of single-session multivessel PCI across the participating centers. The staged multivessel PCI group more often had complex coronary anatomy such as 3-vessel disease, chronic total occlusion, and calcified lesions requiring an atherectomy device compared with the single-session multivessel PCI group. The rates of PCI success, procedural complications, and meeting OPTIVUS criteria were not different between groups. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was not different between single-session and staged multivessel PCI groups (9.0% vs 10.8%, log-rank P = 0.42). After adjusting confounders, the effect of single-session multivessel PCI relative to staged multivessel PCI was not significant for the primary endpoint (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.58-1.55; P = 0.84). Conclusions: Single-session and staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI had similar 1-year outcomes.

Biodegradable or durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ten-year outcomes of the randomised NEXT Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10 years. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES. METHODS: The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1 year after stent implantation up to 10 years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES. RESULTS: From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled a total of 3,241 patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417 patients (1,204 patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1 year and up to 10 years after stent implantation.

Dexmedetomidine versus haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated patients with hyperactive delirium during the night in a high dependency unit: study protocol for an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (DEX-HD trial).

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in critically ill patients. Haloperidol has long been used for the treatment of delirium. Dexmedetomidine has recently been used to treat delirium among intubated critically ill patients. However, the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for delirium in non-intubated critically ill patients remains unknown. We hypothesize that dexmedetomidine is superior to haloperidol for sedation of patients with hyperactive delirium, and would reduce the prevalence of delirium among non-intubated patients after administration. We will conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for the treatment of nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients in high dependency units (HDUs). METHODS: This is an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients at two HDUs of a tertiary hospital. We will recruit consecutive non-intubated patients who are admitted to the HDU from the emergency room, and allocate them in a 1:1 ratio to the dexmedetomidine or haloperidol group in advance. The allocated investigational drug will be administered only when participants develop hyperactive delirium (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS] score ≥1 and a positive score on the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU between 19:00 and 6:00 the next day) during the night at an HDU. Dexmedetomidine is administered continuously, while haloperidol is administered intermittently. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve the targeted sedation level (RASS score of between -3 and 0) 2h after the administration of the investigational drug. Secondary outcomes include the sedation level and prevalence of delirium on the day following the administration of the investigational drugs, and safety. We plan to enroll 100 participants who develop nocturnal hyperactive delirium and receive one of the two investigational drugs. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated critically ill patients with hyperactive delirium in HDUs. The results of this study may confirm whether dexmedetomidine could be another option to sedate patients with hyperactive delirium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCT1051220015, registered on 21 April 2022.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.