CYP2C19 Genetic Testing for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

There is significant variability in the efficacy and safety of oral P2Y12 inhibitors, which are used to prevent ischemic outcomes in common diseases such as coronary and peripheral arterial disease and stroke. Clopidogrel, a prodrug, is the most used oral P2Y12 inhibitor and is activated primarily after being metabolized by a highly polymorphic hepatic cytochrome CYP2C219 enzyme. Loss-of-function genetic variants in CYP2C219 are common, can result in decreased active metabolite levels and increased on-treatment platelet aggregation, and are associated with increased ischemic events on clopidogrel therapy. Such patients can be identified by CYP2C19 genetic testing and can be treated with alternative therapy. Conversely, universal use of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor or prasugrel, which are not dependent on CYP2C19 for activation, has been recommended but can result in increased bleeding. Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that a precision medicine approach in which loss-of-function carriers are prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel and noncarriers are prescribed clopidogrel results in reducing ischemic events without increasing bleeding risk. The evidence to date supports CYP2C19 genetic testing before oral P2Y12 inhibitors are prescribed in patients with acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical implementation of such genetic testing will depend on among multiple factors: rapid availability of results or adoption of the concept of performing preemptive genetic testing, provision of easy-to-understand results with therapeutic recommendations, and seamless integration in the electronic health record.

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.

De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Long-term outcomes of high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a Korean nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at increased risk of not only bleeding, but also ischaemic events. This study aimed to determine the long-term relative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events in HBR patients. METHODS: This study was a nationwide cohort study, based on the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Patients diagnosed with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome and those who underwent PCI in Korea between 2009 and 2018 were included in the analysis. According to the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, the total population was divided into HBR and non-HBR groups. The co-primary outcomes were major bleeding events and ischaemic (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke) events. RESULTS: Among a total of 325 417 patients who underwent PCI, 66 426 patients (20.4%) had HBR. During the follow-up period, HBR patients had a higher risk for major bleeding events (23.9% vs. 8.9%, P < .001) and ischaemic events (33.8% vs. 14.4%, P < .001). However, the impact of HBR was significant for major bleeding events [hazard ratio (HR) 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.04-3.21, P < .001] and for ischaemic events (HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.45-2.56, P < .001). The HBR group was also associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR 3.73, 95% CI 3.66-3.79, P < .001). The average annual rate of major bleeding events within the first year after PCI was 5.5% for a single major criterion, and 2.9% for a single minor criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, those with HBR were at increased long-term risk for both bleeding and ischaemic events, with a greater risk of mortality compared to non-HBR patients.

Considerations on the Management of Acute Postoperative Ischemia After Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Acute postoperative myocardial ischemia (PMI) after cardiac surgery is an infrequent event that can evolve rapidly and become a potentially life-threatening complication. Multiple factors are associated with acute PMI after cardiac surgery and may vary by the type of surgical procedure performed. Although the criteria defining nonprocedural myocardial ischemia are well established, there are no universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of acute PMI. In addition, current evidence on the management of acute PMI after cardiac surgery is sparse and generally of low methodological quality. Once acute PMI is suspected, prompt diagnosis and treatment are imperative, and options range from conservative strategies to percutaneous coronary intervention and redo coronary artery bypass grafting. In this document, a multidisciplinary group including experts in cardiac surgery, cardiology, anesthesiology, and postoperative care summarizes the existing evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute PMI and provides clinical guidance.

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.

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.

The Use of Cangrelor in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the CAMEO Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the use of cangrelor in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: CAMEO (Cangrelor in Acute MI: Effectiveness and Outcomes) is a multicenter observational registry evaluating platelet inhibition in patients with MI. We examined the duration of cangrelor infusion and the amount of time to transition from cangrelor to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor in patients with CS. We also assessed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and bleeding risks, stratified by dosage duration, time to transition and oral P2Y12 inhibitor potency. RESULTS: Among 2352 cangrelor-treated patients with MI, 249 patients were in CS. Among the patients with CS, 16 (6.4%) received the "bridge" infusion dose, 202 (81.1%) the PCI cangrelor infusion dose, and 30 (12.0%) had a combination of both infusion doses. Patients with CS had a median age of 66 years; 32% were women; 21% were Black patients; 35% had diabetes; 19% received thrombectomy; and 59% received mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% intra-aortic balloon pump, 27% Impella). The median duration of infusion was 3.9 (2-21.5 hours) in patients with CS and was 2 (1.6-3.1 hours) for all cangrelor-treated patients. The median duration of transition from cangrelor to oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration was 0.1 (-0.5-21.0 hours) for patients with CS. In multivariable modeling, chronic lung disease and the use of MCS and was associated with longer cangrelor infusions (defined as > 3.9 hours). Among cangrelor-treated patients with CS, 24.1% of these patients had a bleeding event, and 41.8% had a MACE event. After adjustment, a longer cangrelor infusion duration was associated with increased risk of bleeding (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The median duration of cangrelor infusion was longer for patients presenting with CS. Use of MCS was associated with longer cangrelor infusion durations in patients with CS. Further work is needed to understand the pharmacodynamics of antiplatelet agents in patients with CS.

Immature Platelet Fraction Predicts Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: the ISAR-REACT 5 Reticulated Platelet Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Immature or reticulated platelets are associated with impaired efficacy of antiplatelet drugs and adverse events in cardiovascular patients. Their role as a predictive biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is not fully understood. We aimed to prospectively evaluate reticulated platelets as a predictor of the primary end point of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Immature platelet fraction (IPF) was assessed within 48 hours after randomization. Patients were divided based on the IPF median values: the IPFhigh group included patients with IPF>median and the IPFlow group included patients with IPF≤median. Platelet aggregation was assessed using the Multiplate Analyzer and was correlated to IPF. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven patients were included in the study. IPF values in % (median [interquartile range]) within the first 48 hours did not differ between the two study groups: 3.6 (2.5-5.2)% in the prasugrel group and 3.6 (2.5-5.4)% in the ticagrelor group (P=0.882). The incidence of the primary end point was significantly higher in the IPFhigh (IPF>3.6%) group compared with the IPFlow (IPF≤3.6%) group: 13.0% versus 7.2% (HRadj, 1.74 [1.02-3.00]; P=0.044), independently from the assigned drug (Pint=0.159). No significant association between IPF and BARC 3 to 5 bleeding was observed. ADP-induced platelet aggregation correlated significantly with IPF in patients treated with prasugrel (r=0.22; P=0.005) while no correlation was detected in patients treated with ticagrelor (r=0.09; P=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Independently from drug treatment, IPF was associated with the primary end point and therefore is a promising biomarker for the prediction of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Interindividual variability in platelet reactivity among individuals with or without antiplatelet therapy: results from a large tertiary care hospital.

Antiplatelet therapy is crucial for reducing thrombotic events in patients with atherosclerotic disease, but the response vary widely among individuals. The identification of patients at high (HPR), optimal (OPR) or low platelet reactivity (LPR) is dependent on high interlaboratory variability. We report results of a large dataset of patients to assess the gold standard light transmission aggregometry (LTA). A total of 11,913 patients who sequentially underwent LTA assessment using several stimuli (ADP-2µM, collagen-2 µg/ml, arachidonic acid 0.5 mM, epinephrine 10µM) with a standardized methodology between 2004 and 2022 were screened. After application of inclusion-exclusion criteria, 5,901 patients were included and divided into five groups: healthy-volunteers (HV; N = 534); controls (CTR; N = 1073); aspirin-treated patients (ASA; 75-150 mg/die; N = 3280); clopidogrel-treated patients (CLOP; 75 mg/die; N = 495) and patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy, ASA plus CLOP (DAPT; N = 519). The mean PA% in response to ADP 2 µm was 72.4 ± 33.3 in the CTR population, 40.6 ± 29.9 in the ASA group, 25.1 ± 35.1 in the CLOP group and 10.2 ± 18.5 in the DAPT group. The mean PA% in response to collagen 2 ug/ml was 90.7 ± 10.5 in the CTR population, 40.8 ± 26.3 in the ASA group, 79.4 ± 21.8 in the CLOP group and 17.9 ± 19.9 in the DAPT group. The percentage of patients at OPR following ADP stimuli was 66%, 25%, and 26%, in the ASA, CLOP, and DAPT group, respectively. The percentage of patients at OPR following collagen stimuli was 56%, 22%, and 41%, in the ASA, CLOP, and DAPT group, respectively. LTA was significantly increased in response to ADP (72.4 ± 33.3vs62.7 ± 37.1; p < 0.001) and AA (90.7 ± 15.6vs87.6 ± 20.5; p < 0.001) in CTR compared to HV. Our findings support the concept that a significant proportion of individuals present a hyper- or hypo-reactive platelet phenotype potentially affecting the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy. The variability in response to antiplatelet therapy was particularly evident in patients undergoing single as opposed to dual antiplatelet therapy regimens. These data support ongoing strategies of guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Personalised antiplatelet therapies for coronary artery disease: what the future holds.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the leading causes of death globally, and antiplatelet therapy is crucial for both its prevention and treatment. Antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are commonly used to reduce the risk of thrombotic events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis. However, the benefits associated with the use of antiplatelet drugs also come with a risk of bleeding complications. The ever-growing understanding of the poor prognostic implications associated with bleeding has set the foundations for defining strategies that can mitigate such safety concern without any trade-off in antithrombotic protection. To this extent, personalised antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a paradigm that optimizes the balance between safety and efficacy by customizing treatment to the individual patient's needs and risk profile. Accurate risk stratification for both bleeding and thrombosis can aid in selecting the optimal antiplatelet therapy and prevent serious and life-threatening outcomes. Risk stratification has traditionally included clinical and demographic characteristics and has expanded to incorporate angiographic features and laboratory findings. The availability of bedside platelet function testing as well as rapid genotyping assays has also allowed for a more individualized selection of antiplatelet therapy. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art and future trends in personalised antiplatelet therapy for patients with CAD, with emphasis on those presenting with an acute coronary syndrome and undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. The aim is to provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of personalised antiplatelet therapy and facilitate informed clinical decision-making.

Reversal and removal of oral antithrombotic drugs in patients with active or perceived imminent bleeding.

Remarkable progress has been made in the pharmacological management of patients with cardiovascular disease, including the frequent use of antithrombotic agents. Nonetheless, bleeding complications remain frequent and potentially life-threatening. Therapeutic interventions relying on prompt antithrombotic drug reversal or removal have been developed to assist clinicians in treating patients with active bleeding or an imminent threat of major bleeding due to urgent surgery or invasive procedures. Early phase studies on these novel strategies have shown promising results using surrogate pharmacodynamic endpoints. However, the benefit of reversing/removing antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs should always be weighed against the possible prothrombotic effects associated with withdrawal of antithrombotic protection, bleeding, and surgical trauma. Understanding the ischemic-bleeding risk tradeoff of antithrombotic drug reversal and removal strategies in the context of urgent high-risk settings requires dedicated clinical investigations, but challenges in trial design remain, with relevant practical, financial, and ethical implications.

Sex-stratified differences in early antithrombotic treatment response in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying the increased risk of bleeding that female patients with ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) exhibit, remains unclear. The present report assessed sex-related differences in response to pre-hospital dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) initiation in patients with STEMI. METHODS: The COMPARE CRUSH trial randomized patients presenting with STEMI to receive a pre-hospital loading dose of crushed or integral prasugrel tablets in the ambulance. In this substudy, we compared platelet reactivity levels and the occurrence of high platelet reactivity (HPR; defined as platelet reactivity ≥208) between sexes at 4 prespecified time points after DAPT initiation, and evaluated post-PCI bleeding between groups. RESULTS: Out of 633 STEMI patients, 147 (23%) were female. Females compared with males presented with significantly higher levels of platelet reactivity and higher HPR rates at baseline (232 [IQR, 209-256] vs 195 [IQR, 171-220], P < .01, and 76% vs 41%, OR 4.58 [95%CI, 2.52-8.32], P < .01, respectively). Moreover, female sex was identified as the sole independent predictor of HPR at baseline (OR 5.67 [95%CI, 2.56-12.53], P < .01). Following DAPT initiation, levels of platelet reactivity and the incidence of HPR were similar between sexes. Post-PCI bleeding occurred more frequently in females compared with males (10% vs 2%, OR 6.02 [95%CI, 2.61-11.87], P < .01). Female sex was an independent predictor of post-PCI bleeding (OR 3.25 [95%CI, 1.09-9.72], P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary STEMI cohort, female STEMI patients remain at risk of bleeding complications after primary PCI. However, this is not explained by sex-specific differences in the pharmacodynamic response to pre-hospital DAPT initiation.

COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

COVID-19 is associated with endothelial activation in the setting of a potent inflammatory reaction and a hypercoagulable state. The end result of this thromboinflammatory state is an excess in thrombotic events, in particular venous thromboembolism. Pulmonary embolism (PE) has been of special interest in patients with COVID-19 given its association with respiratory deterioration, increased risk of intensive care unit admission, and prolonged hospital stay. The pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-associated PE may differ from the conventional non-COVID-19-associated PE. In addition to embolic events from deep vein thrombi, in situ pulmonary thrombosis, particularly in smaller vascular beds, may be relevant in patients with COVID-19. Appropriate prevention of thrombotic events in COVID-19 has therefore become of critical interest. Several changes in viral biology, vaccination, and treatment management during the pandemic may have resulted in changes in incidence trends. This review provides an overview of the pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of COVID-19-associated PE. Furthermore, we briefly summarize the results from randomized controlled trials of preventive antithrombotic therapies in COVID-19, focusing on their findings related to PE. We discuss the acute treatment of COVID-19-associated PE, which is substantially similar to the management of conventional non-COVID-19 PE. Ultimately, we comment on the current knowledge gaps in the evidence and the future directions in the treatment and follow-up of COVID-19-associated PE, including long-term management, and its possible association with long-COVID.

The search for optimal antithrombotic therapy in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: facts and uncertainties.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive procedure, which is used frequently in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Most patients undergoing TAVI are over 80 years of age with a high bleeding as well as thrombotic risk. Despite the increasing safety of the procedure, thromboembolic events [stroke, (subclinical) valve thrombosis] remain prevalent. As a consequence, antithrombotic prophylaxis is routinely used and only recently new data on the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic drugs has become available. On the other hand, these antithrombotic drugs increase bleeding in a population with unique aortic stenosis-related bleeding characteristics (such as acquired von Willebrand factor defect and angiodysplasia). In this review, we discuss the impact of thromboembolic and bleeding events, the current optimal antithrombotic therapy based on registries and recent randomized controlled trials, as well as try to give a practical guide how to treat these high-risk patients. Finally, we discuss knowledge gaps and future research needed to fill these gaps.

Comparative effects of guided vs. potent P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96-1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603). KEY QUESTION: A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored. KEY FINDING: In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Interventions for Structural Heart Disease.

Contemporary evidence supports device-based transcatheter interventions for the management of patients with structural heart disease. These procedures, which include aortic valve implantation, mitral or tricuspid valve repair/implantation, left atrial appendage occlusion, and patent foramen ovale closure, profoundly differ with respect to clinical indications and procedural aspects. Yet, patients undergoing transcatheter cardiac interventions require antithrombotic therapy before, during, or after the procedure to prevent thromboembolic events. However, these therapies are associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. To date, challenges and controversies exist regarding balancing the risk of thrombotic and bleeding complications in these patients such that the optimal antithrombotic regimens to adopt in each specific procedure is still unclear. In this review, we summarize current evidence on antithrombotic therapies for device-based transcatheter interventions targeting structural heart disease and emphasize the importance of a tailored approach in these patients.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective: 2021 Update.

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in improving outcomes compared with standard antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. We assessed the safety and efficacy of guided versus standard selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, from Aug 20 to Oct 25, 2020, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies published in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, by means of platelet function testing or genetic testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were used with random-effects or fixed-effect models according to the estimated heterogeneity among studies assessed by the I2 index. Coprimary endpoints were trial-defined primary major adverse cardiovascular events and any bleeding. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and major and minor bleeding. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021215901). FINDINGS: 3656 potentially relevant articles were screened. Our analysis included 11 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with data for 20 743 patients. Compared with standard therapy, guided selection of antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63-0·95, p=0·015) and reduced bleeding, although not statistically significant (RR 0·88, 0·77-1·01, p=0·069). Cardiovascular death (RR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00, p=0·049), myocardial infarction (RR 0·76, 0·60-0·96, p=0·021), stent thrombosis (RR 0·64, 0·46-0·89, p=0·011), stroke (RR 0·66, 0·48-0·91, p=0·010), and minor bleeding (RR 0·78, 0·67-0·92, p=0·0030) were reduced with guided therapy compared with standard therapy. Risks of all-cause death and major bleeding did not differ between guided and standard approaches. Outcomes varied according to the strategy used, with an escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in ischaemic events without any trade-off in safety, and a de-escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in bleeding, without any trade-off in efficacy. INTERPRETATION: Guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improved both composite and individual efficacy outcomes with a favourable safety profile, driven by a reduction in minor bleeding, supporting the use of platelet function or genetic testing to optimise the choice of agent in patients undergoing PCI. FUNDING: None.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).