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.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Systematic Review for the 2016 ACC/AHA Guideline Focused Update on Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) remains uncertain. Similarly, questions remain about the role of DAPT in long-term therapy of stable post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. AIM: Our objective was to compare the incidence of death, major hemorrhage, MI, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events in patients randomized to prolonged or short-course DAPT after implantation of newer-generation DES and in secondary prevention after MI. METHODS: We used traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches to address the following questions: Q1) What is the minimum duration of DAPT required after DES implantation? Q2) What is the clinical benefit of prolonging DAPT up to 18 to 48 months? Q3) What is the clinical effect of DAPT in stable patients who are >1 year past an MI? RESULTS: We reviewed evidence from 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 33 051 patients who received predominantly newer-generation DES to answer: A1) Use of DAPT for 12 months, as compared with use for 3 to 6 months, resulted in no significant differences in incidence of death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.63), major hemorrhage (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.82), MI (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.18), or stent thrombosis (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.55). Bayesian models confirmed the primary analysis. A2) Use of DAPT for 18 to 48 months, compared with use for 6 to 12 months, was associated with no difference in incidence of all-cause death (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.42) but was associated with increased major hemorrhage (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.09), decreased MI (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.95), and decreased stent thrombosis (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.74). A risk-benefit analysis found 3 fewer stent thromboses (95% CI: 2 to 5) and 6 fewer MIs (95% CI: 2 to 11) but 5 more major bleeds (95% CI: 3 to 9) per 1000 patients treated with prolonged DAPT per year. Post hoc analyses provided weak evidence of increased mortality with prolonged DAPT. We reviewed evidence from 1 RCT of 21 162 patients and a post hoc analysis of 1 RCT of 15 603 patients to answer: A3): Use of DAPT >1 year after MI reduced the composite risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.95) but increased major bleeding (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.68 to 3.21). A meta-analysis and a post hoc analysis of an RCT in patients with stable cardiovascular disease produced similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: The primary analysis provides moderately strong evidence that prolonged DAPT after implantation of newer-generation DES entails a tradeoff between reductions in stent thrombosis and MI and increases in major hemorrhage. Secondary analyses provide weak evidence of increased mortality with prolonged DAPT after DES implantation. In patients whose coronary thrombotic risk was defined by a prior MI rather than by DES implantation, the primary analysis provides moderately strong evidence of reduced cardiovascular events at the expense of increased bleeding.

Bivalirudin or heparin for radial access?

Bivalirudin is a reasonable choice during transradial PCI for acute MI when bleeding risk is high and clopidogrel or cangrelor is used Heparin is reasonable during transradial PCI when bleeding risk is low and high-intensity antiplatelet therapy is used Future studies are required to define the utility of post-PCI bivalirudin infusions.

How long should dual antiplatelet therapy be used in diabetic patients after implantation of drug-eluting stents?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that identifies the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of newer generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in diabetic patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of ischemic events and bleeding after DES implantation. The optimal duration of DAPT for this population is currently unknown. In a subgroup analysis of 8542 diabetic patients enrolled in eight RCTs of DAPT duration after implantation of newer generation DESs, prolonged courses of DAPT of 12-36 months in duration resulted in rates of major adverse cardiac events that were no different from those seen after shorter courses of DAPT of 3-12 months in duration (odds ratio 1.00, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0.74-1.33). SUMMARY: Prolonged DAPT up to 36 months after newer generation DES implantation in diabetic subgroups has not been associated with better outcomes than shorter courses of 3-12 months. Until dedicated trials are completed in diabetic populations, DAPT duration after newer generation DES implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus should follow recommendations for the general population.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with aspiration thrombectomy Vs. Conventional percutaneous coronary intervention during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the impact of aspiration thrombectomy (AT) during primary coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: AT during PCI for STEMI may improve microvascular reperfusion, but its impact on clinical outcomes has remained controversial. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL, andClinicalTrials.gov databases on March 31, 2015 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of AT with PCI compared with PCI alone for STEMI. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included major adverse cardiac events (MACE, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), target-vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis and stroke. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (n = 21,501) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 10,544 patients were treated with AT and PCI, compared to 10,957 control patients. The use of AT was not associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78-1.01; P = 0.07), MACE (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; P = 0.06), recurrent MI (RR 0.97: 95% CI 0.81-1.17; P = 0.77), TVR (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82-1.05; P = 0.23), stent thrombosis (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.66-1.07; P = 0.17), or stroke (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.86-2.11; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Using the totality of evidence available through 2015, this meta-analysis failed to show that the routine use of aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction significantly reduces all-cause mortality, MACE, recurrent MI, TVR, or stent thrombosis. The role of aspiration thrombectomy in selected patients with angiographic evidence of large thrombus burden requires further clinical investigation. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Tradeoff Between Shorter and Longer Courses of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Implantation of Newer Generation Drug-Eluting Stents.

The benefit of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains uncertain. In 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 31,666 predominantly low-risk patients undergoing DES implantation, shorter courses (3-12 months) of DAPT resulted in lower mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.98) and major hemorrhage (OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.48-0.75) but increased myocardial infarction (MI, OR 1.34, 95 % CI 1.04-1.73) and stent thrombosis (ST, OR 1.75, 95 % CI 1.08-2.82) than did longer courses (12-36 months) of DAPT. A risk-benefit analysis identified 3 fewer deaths and 5 fewer bleeds but 4 more MIs and 3 more STs annually for every 1000 patients treated with the shorter courses. In the predominantly low-risk population enrolled in RCTs, limiting DAPT to 3 to 12 months after DES implantation saved lives and prevented bleeding at the expense of increased ST and MI.

Outcomes after multivessel or culprit-Vessel intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients with multivessel coronary disease: a Bayesian cross-design meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease can undergo either multivessel intervention (MVI) or culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) only. BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support the use of MVI, but cohort studies support the use of CVI. METHODS: We developed Bayesian models that incorporated parameters for study type and study outcome after MVI or CVI. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (4 RCTs, 3 matched cohort studies, and 11 unmatched observational studies) enrolled 48,398 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD and reported outcomes after MVI or CVI-only at the time of primary PCI. Using a Bayesian hierarchical model, we found that the point estimates replicated previously reported trends, but the wide Bayesian credible intervals (BCI) excluded any plausible mortality difference between MVI versus CVI in all three study types: RCTs (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% BCI 0.31-1.20), matched cohort studies (OR 1.37, 95% BCI 0.86-2.24), or unmatched cohort studies (OR 1.16, 95% BCI 0.70-1.89). Both the global summary (OR 1.10, 95% BCI 0.74-1.51) and a sensitivity analysis that weighted the RCTs 1-5 times as much as observational studies revealed no credible advantage of one PCI strategy over the other (OR 1.05, 95% BCI 0.64-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian approaches contextualize the comparison of different strategies by study type and suggest that neither MVI nor CVI emerges as a preferred strategy in an analysis that accounts mortality differences.

Bayesian methods affirm the use of percutaneous coronary intervention to improve survival in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials support the use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Studies suggesting the equivalence of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with CABG for this indication indirectly support the 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Class IIa recommendation for PCI to improve survival in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. We tested whether bayesian approaches uphold the new recommendation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a bayesian cross-design and network meta-analysis of 12 studies (4 randomized clinical trials and 8 observational studies) comparing CABG with PCI (n=4574 patients) and of 7 studies (2 randomized clinical trials and 5 observational studies) comparing CABG with medical therapy (n=3224 patients). The odds ratios of 1-year mortality after PCI compared with CABG using bayesian cross-design meta-analysis were not different among randomized clinical trials (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% bayesian credible interval, 0.67-1.43), matched cohort studies (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% bayesian credible interval, 0.76-1.73), and other types of cohort studies (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.35). A network meta-analysis suggested that medical therapy is associated with higher 1-year mortality than the use of PCI for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 3.22; 95% bayesian credible interval, 1.96-5.30). CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian methods support the current guidelines, which were based on traditional statistical methods and have proposed that PCI, like CABG, improves survival for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease compared with medical therapy. An integrated approach using both direct and indirect evidence may yield new insights to enhance the translation of clinical trial data into practice.

Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.

Putting the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization Into Practice: A Case Series.

This case series shows how the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization can be used to decide between revascularization or optimal medical therapy to reduce mortality or cardiovascular events in selected subsets of patients with stable ischemic heart disease and complex coronary disease with or without left ventricular dysfunction. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

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.

Dialysis access intervention: Techniques for the interventional cardiologist.

Interventional cardiologists who treat malfunctioning hemodialysis accesses play an important role in the life of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). By collaborating with interventional nephrologists who currently perform the bulk of routine access angiographic procedures, interventional cardiologists can fill an important gap in the care of ESKD patients by performing urgent or emergent procedures that fall outside the schedule of an outpatient interventional nephrology laboratory to ensure that hemodialysis patients will not miss a hemodialysis session or get a temporary catheter. This paper reviews the pathophysiology of dialysis access failure and illustrates the catheter-based approaches used by interventional cardiologists to treat malfunctioning dialysis accesses.