One-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled ODIN trial.

The optimal antiplatelet strategy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. Adding the P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, to low-dose aspirin for 1 year is associated with a reduction in graft failure, particularly saphenous vein grafts, at the expense of an increased risk of clinically important bleeding. As the risk of thrombotic graft failure and ischaemic events is highest early after CABG surgery, a better risk-to-benefit profile may be attained with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients (ODIN) trial is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study of 700 subjects that will evaluate the effect of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus low-dose aspirin after CABG in patients with CCS. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matching placebo, in addition to aspirin 75-150 mg once daily for 1 month; after the first month, antiplatelet therapy will be continued with aspirin alone. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year. The key secondary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 bleeding, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year (net clinical benefit). ODIN will report whether the addition of ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin for 1 month after CABG reduces ischaemic events and provides a net clinical benefit in patients with CCS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05997693).

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Management of Adults With Anomalous Aortic Origin of the Coronary Arteries: State-of-the-Art Review.

As a result of increasing adoption of imaging screening, the number of adult patients with a diagnosis of anomalous aortic origin of the coronary arteries (AAOCA) has grown in recent years. Existing guidelines provide a framework for management and treatment, but patients with AAOCA present with a wide range of anomalies and symptoms that make general recommendations of limited applicability. In particular, a large spectrum of interventions can be used for treatment, and there is no consensus on the optimal approach to be used. In this paper, a multidisciplinary group of clinical and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the available evidence on the interventional treatment of AAOCA in adult patients. Using a structured Delphi process, the group agreed on expert recommendations that are intended to complement existing clinical practice guidelines.

Intravascular imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention: temporal trends and clinical outcomes in the USA.

AIMS: Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE.

Outcomes With Percutaneous Debulking of Tricuspid Valve Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis, percutaneous debulking is a treatment option. However, the outcomes of this approach are less well known. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent percutaneous vegetation debulking for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis from August 2020 to November 2022 at a large academic tertiary care public hospital. The primary efficacy outcome was procedural success defined by clearance of blood cultures. The primary safety outcome was any procedural complication. For the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or heart block, outcomes were compared (sequential noninferiority and superiority) with published surgical outcomes data. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis who underwent percutaneous debulking, the average age was 41.3±10.1 years, all patients had septic pulmonary emboli with 27 (93.1%) patients having cavitary lung lesions before the procedure. For the efficacy outcomes, 28 patients (96.6%) had clearance of cultures after their procedure, mean white blood cell count significantly decreased from 16.8±1.4×103 to 12.6±1.0×103 per µL (P<0.01), and mean body temperature significantly decreased from 99.8F ±0.30 to 98.3F ±0.20 (P<0.001) post-procedure. For safety outcomes, there were no procedural complications (0%). Two patients (6.9%) died during the follow-up period, both during the index hospitalization due to severe necrotizing pneumonia. When compared with published data on surgical outcomes, percutaneous debulking was noninferior and superior for the composite of in-hospital death or heart block (noninferiority, P<0.001; superiority, P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous debulking is feasible, effective, and safe in treating patients with tricuspid valve infective endocarditis refractory to medical therapy.

Preoperative frailty and adverse outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in US veterans.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary guidelines emphasize the value of incorporating frailty into clinical decision-making regarding revascularization strategies for coronary artery disease. Yet, there are limited data describing the association between frailty and longer-term mortality among coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2016-2020, 40 VA medical centers) of US veterans nationwide that underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Frailty was quantified by the Veterans Administration Frailty Index (VA-FI), which applies the cumulative deficit method to render a proportion of 30 pertinent diagnosis codes. Patients were classified as non-frail (VA-FI ≤ 0.1), pre-frail (0.1 < VA-FI ≤ 0.2), or frail (VA-FI > 0.2). We used Cox proportional hazards models to ascertain the association of frailty with all-cause mortality. Our primary study outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality; the co-primary outcome was days alive and out of the hospital within the first postoperative year. RESULTS: There were 13,554 CABG patients (median 69 years, 79% White, 1.5% women). The mean pre-operative VA-FI was 0.21 (SD: 0.11); 31% were pre-frail (VA-FI: 0.17) and 47% were frail (VA-FI: 0.31). Frail patients were older and had higher co-morbidity burdens than pre-frail and non-frail patients. Compared with non-frail patients (13.0% [11.4, 14.7]), there was a significant association between frail and pre-frail patients and increased cumulative 5-year all-cause mortality (frail: 24.8% [23.3, 26.1]; HR: 1.75 [95% CI 1.54, 2.00]; pre-frail 16.8% [95% CI 15.3, 18.4]; HR 1.2 [1.08,1.34]). Compared with non-frail patients (mean 362[SD 12]), pre-frail (mean 361 [SD 14]; p < 0.01) and frail patients (mean 358[SD 18]; p < 0.01) spent fewer days alive and out of the hospital in the first postoperative year. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-frailty and frailty were prevalent among US veterans undergoing CABG and associated with worse mid-term outcomes. Given the high prevalence of frailty with attendant adverse outcomes, there may be an opportunity to improve outcomes by identifying and mitigating frailty before surgery.

In-hospital Outcomes of Patients With and Without Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Who Present With a Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

The clinical course of patients with a previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the management and outcomes of patients with and without previous CABG who present with an NSTEMI. Patients hospitalized with an NSTEMI between 2002 and 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. The baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with and without a previous CABG were compared. The outcomes included the rates of invasive procedures (defined as coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or CABG), and its individual components, and in-hospital mortality. A total of 1,445,545 cases of NSTEMI were found, of which 133,691 (9.3%) had a previous CABG. Patients with a previous CABG were older (72.4 vs 68.6 years, p <0.001), more likely men (68.8% vs 56.9%, p <0.001), and of White race (79.7% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). The previous CABG cohort had lower rates of invasive procedures (50.4% vs 65.6%, p <0.001), PCI (23.7% vs 32.0%, p <0.001), or CABG (1.2% vs 10.6%; p <0.001) in the unmatched analysis. The results were consistent in the propensity score-matched analysis with the previous CABG group less likely to receive any invasive procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 0.49), including coronary angiography (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.55), PCI (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.67), or repeat CABG (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.12). Moreover, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in the previous CABG group (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.21). In the subset of patients who were revascularized in both groups, this excess mortality was no longer observed (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03). In conclusion, a previous CABG in patients who present with NSTEMI is associated with lower rates of invasive procedures and revascularization and higher in-hospital mortality than patients without a previous CABG.

Real-World Examination of Revascularization Strategies for Left Main Coronary Disease in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing nonemergent revascularization. However, there is a paucity of real-world contemporary observational studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of CABG versus PCI in patients with left main coronary disease. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain records of all patients with angiographic evidence of left main coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis) treated with either isolated CABG or PCI from 2008 to 2020. Emergent, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were excluded. Baseline characteristics of patients were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Late mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: After exclusions, 1,299 and 21,287 patients underwent PCI and CABG, respectively. Prior to matching, PCI patients were older (age 75.2 vs 68.0 years) and more likely to be women (34.6% vs 20.1%), although they had less CAD burden. Propensity score matching on 25 baseline covariates yielded 1,128 well-matched pairs. There was no difference in early mortality between PCI and CABG (5.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.075). Over 7-year follow-up, all-cause mortality (53.6% vs 35.2%; HR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.42-1.87; P < 0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.8% vs 48.6%; HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.57-2.00) were significantly higher with PCI than CABG. CONCLUSIONS: CABG was the most common revascularization strategy in this real-world registry. Patients undergoing PCI were much older and of higher risk at baseline. After matching, there was no difference in early mortality but improved late survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events with CABG.

Sex-Based Differences in Periprocedural Complications Following Lower Extremity Peripheral Vascular Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Women with coronary artery disease are shown to have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with men; however, less is known about sex-based outcomes following lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) for symptomatic peripheral artery disease. The study aims to assess whether female sex is independently associated with periprocedural complications in patients undergoing PVI. METHODS: Analysis includes patients undergoing lower extremity PVI from September 2016 to March 2020 from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the independent association of female sex with post-PVI complications. RESULTS: Of the 119 620 patients included, 47 316 (39.6%) were women. Analysis reflected that women were at higher risk of developing access site complications, including any hematoma (odds ratio [OR], 1.45 [1.35-1.57]), hematoma requiring transfusion (OR, 2.24 [1.82-2.76]; P<0.001), hematoma requiring surgery (OR, 1.49 [1.19-1.86]; P<0.001), pseudoaneurysm (OR, 1.69 [1.39-2.05]; P<0.001), and access site occlusion (OR, 1.89 [1.15-3.08]; P<0.001). Women also faced higher risks of target lesion dissection (OR, 1.36 [1.26-1.46]; P<0.001), above-knee amputation (OR, 1.37 [1.18-1.58]; P<0.001), and in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.21 [1.07-1.38]; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort, women undergoing lower extremity PVI for symptomatic peripheral artery disease were at higher risk than men of developing periprocedural complications, including moderate or severe access site bleeding, above-knee amputation, and in-hospital mortality. This increased risk persisted despite adjustment for differences in baseline patient or procedural characteristics and warrants further investigation.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Coronary Artery Revascularization Guidelines for Managing the Nonculprit Artery in STEMI.

The 2021 Coronary Artery Disease revascularization guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) provide recommendations for managing nonculprit arteries in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although staged revascularization is preferred, at times same-setting intervention, coronary artery bypass surgery, or medical therapy may be preferable. These cases exemplify clinical scenarios for treating nonculprit arteries in STEMI. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

For 20 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, has been the gold standard of antithrombotic pharmacology after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the past 5 years, several investigations have challenged this paradigm by testing the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (that is, without aspirin) following a short course of DAPT. Collectively, these studies suggested a reduction in the risk of major bleeding and no significant increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with guideline-recommended DAPT. Current recommendations are evolving to inform clinical practice on the ideal candidates for P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI. Generalizing the results of studies of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy requires a thorough understanding of their design, populations, interventions, comparators and results. In this Review, we provide an up-to-date overview on the use of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI, including supporting pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence, practical recommendations and future directions.

In-Stent Restenosis in Saphenous Vein Grafts (from the DIVA Trial).

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have high rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We compared the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients and lesions that did develop ISR with those who did not develop ISR during a median follow-up of 2.7 years in the DIVA study (NCT01121224). We also examined the ISR types using the Mehran classification. ISR developed in 119 out of the 575 DIVA patients (21%), with similar incidence among patients with drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMS) (21% vs 21%, p = 0.957). Patients in the ISR group were younger (67 ± 7 vs 69 ± 8 years, p = 0.04) and less likely to have heart failure (27% vs 38%, p = 0.03) and SVG lesions with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow before the intervention (77% vs 83%, p <0.01), but had a higher number of target SVG lesions (1.33 ± 0.64 vs 1.16 ± 0.42, p <0.01), more stents implanted in the target SVG lesions (1.52 ± 0.80 vs 1.31 ± 0.66, p <0.01), and longer total stent length (31.37 ± 22.11 vs 25.64 ± 17.42 mm, p = 0.01). The incidence of diffuse ISR was similar in patients who received drug-eluting-stents and BMS (57% vs 54%, p = 0.94), but BMS patients were more likely to develop occlusive restenosis (17% vs 33%, p = 0.05).

Radial versus femoral access in patients with coronary artery bypass surgery: Frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal access site for cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) continues to be debated. METHODS: We performed a random effects frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, including 60,192 patients with prior CABG (27,236 in the radial group; 32,956 in the femoral group) that underwent cardiac catheterization. Outcomes included (1) access-site complications, (2) crossover to a different vascular access, (3) procedure time, and (4) contrast volume. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for binary outcomes. RESULTS: Among randomized trials, crossover (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.04, 28.51; p = 0.003) was higher in the radial group, while access site complications (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.34, 2.87; p = 0.94) and contrast volume (MD: 15.08; 95% CI: -10.19, 40.35; p = 0.24) were similar. Among observational studies, crossover rates were higher (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 2.43, 10.65; p < 0.001), while access site complication rates (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89; p = 0.02) and contrast volume (MD: -7.52; 95% CI: -13.14, -1.90 ml; p = 0.009) were lower in the radial group. Bayesian analysis suggested that the odds of a difference existing between radial and femoral are small for all endpoints except crossover to another access site. CONCLUSION: In a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of patients with prior CABG undergoing coronary catheterization, radial access was associated with lower incidence of vascular access complications and lower contrast volume but also higher crossover rate.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Bridging Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Patients undergoing early surgery after coronary stent implantation are at increased risk for mortality from ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. The optimal antiplatelet strategy in patients who cannot discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) before surgery is unclear. Current guidelines, based on surgical and clinical characteristics, provide risk stratification for bridging therapy with intravenous antiplatelet agents, but management is guided primarily by expert opinion. This review summarizes perioperative risk factors to consider before discontinuing DAPT and reviews the data for intravenous bridging therapies. Published reports have included bridging options such as small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (eptifibatide or tirofiban) and cangrelor, an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor. However, optimal management of these complex patients remains unclear in the absence of randomized controlled data, without which an argument can be made both for and against the use of perioperative intravenous bridging therapy after discontinuing oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care.