MAPT (Mono Antiplatelet Therapy) as Regular Regimen After COBRA PzF™ NanoCoated Coronary Stent (NCS) Implantation.

AIMS: To report procedural and 1-year outcomes following COBRA PzF NCS implantation in a routine daily setting with high bleeding risk (HBR) patients treated with clopidogrel as mono antiplatelet therapy (MAPT). METHODS: This is a prospective, consecutive, observational study in HBR patients who underwent PCI with COBRA PzF NCS and treated with clopidogrel alone at discharge. The primary endpoint was definite stent thrombosis at one month. The secondary endpoint was MACE (Cardiac Death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR)) at 12 months. RESULTS: From October 2015 to December 2018, 77 patients with 120 lesions were enrolled and treated. Mean age was 78.7 ±â€¯8.89 years, 58.5% men and 18.2% had ACS. Patients included had a minimum of 2.0 inclusion LEADERS FREE criteria. Angiographic success was achieved in all cases. The primary endpoint occurred in 0%, no stent thrombosis was occurred. MACE at 12-months (available for 52 patients) was 3.8% including cardiac death 0%, MI 0% and TLR 3.8%. No severe bleeding events (BARC3-5) or stroke or late stent thrombosis were noted. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel as MAPT after COBRA PzF NCS implantation in HBR patients is feasible and an attractive option. One-year follow-up was associated with excellent clinical outcomes and should be confirmed with large randomised study. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: This is prospective registry of high bleeding risk patients treated with the COBRA PzF NCS and MAPT at discharge. The primary end point demonstrated no stent thrombosis. The rate of major cardiac adverse events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation) at 1 year was 3.8%. No severe bleeding events, stroke or late stent thrombosis were noted. One-year follow-up was associated with good clinical outcomes and compared favorably with current devices.

Femoral Versus Nonfemoral Peripheral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Guidelines recommend reconsidering surgery when this access is not feasible. However, alternative peripheral accesses exist, although they have not been accurately compared with femoral access. OBJECTIVES: This study compared nonfemoral peripheral (n-FP) TAVR with femoral TAVR. METHODS: Using the data from the national prospective French registry (FRANCE TAVI [French Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation]), this study compared the characteristics and outcomes of TAVR procedures according to whether they were performed through a femoral or a n-FP access, using a pre-specified propensity score-based matching between groups. Subanalysis during 2 study periods (2013 to 2015 and 2016 to 2017) and among low/intermediate-low and intermediate-high/high volume centers were performed. RESULTS: Among 21,611 patients, 19,995 (92.5%) underwent femoral TAVR and 1,616 (7.5%) underwent n-FP TAVR (transcarotid, n = 914 or trans-subclavian, n = 702). Patients in the n-FP access group had more severe disease (mean logistic EuroSCORE 19.95 vs. 16.95; p < 0.001), with a higher rate of peripheral vascular disease, known coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, and renal failure. After matching, there was no difference in the rate of post-procedural death and complications according to access site, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.032) and unplanned vascular repairs (odds ratio: 0.41; 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 0.59; p < 0.001) in those who underwent n-FP access. The comparison of outcomes provided similar results during the second study period and in intermediate-high/high volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: n-FP TAVR is associated with similar outcomes compared with femoral peripheral TAVR, except for a 2-fold lower rate of major vascular complications and unplanned vascular repairs. n-FP TAVR may be favored over surgery in patients who are deemed ineligible for femoral TAVR and may be a safe alternative when femoral access risk is considered too high.

Immediate and 1-year follow-up with the novel nanosurface modified COBRA PzF stent.

BACKGROUND: The COBRA PzF coronary stent, which has a unique nano-coating of Polyzene-F, was developed to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. AIMS: To report procedural and 1-year clinical outcomes following COBRA PzF coronary stent implantation in a real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS: All patients assigned to treatment with the COBRA PzF in the GCS Axium Rambot Center, Aix-en-Provence, France between February 2013 to June 2014 were prospectively enrolled. RESULTS: Among 100 patients (71% men, mean±standard error age 71.4±11.0 years), 38% had acute coronary syndromes. The population was consistent with real-world experience and included patients with multiple co-morbidities and 26% with diffuse multivessel disease. A total of 151 lesions were treated with 166 stents, including 26% of lesions with a type B2 or C classification. Pre- and post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography analyses showed a mean acute gain of 2.2±0.2mm. Angiographic success was achieved in all cases. One-year follow-up was available for all patients and the target vessel failure (composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) rate was 12%, including 2% mortality (end-stage cardiomyopathy), 5% myocardial infarction (five periprocedural myocardial infarctions with isolated troponin elevation without chest pain or Q waves) and 5% target lesion revascularization. There were no cases of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: The COBRA PzF stent was safe and effective in routine practice. One-year follow-up was associated with excellent clinical outcomes and compared favourably with current devices. These results are very promising in a real-world population of complex patients, and further study is warranted.

Which parameters differ in very old patients with chronic atrial fibrillation treated by anticoagulant or aspirin? Antithrombotic treatment of atrial fibrillation in the elderly.

The objective was to determine the main parameters taken into account for the decision of antithrombotic treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) by vitamin K antagonist or aspirin. This was a prospective clinical study of four clinical services of geriatric medicine. Two hundred and nine inpatients, 84.7 +/- 7 years (women 60.8%), with chronic AF were included. The patients were distributed into two groups (anticoagulant or aspirin) according to medical decision. All the decision criteria for treatment were recorded: cardiopathy, conditions of life, clinical examination (nutrition and autonomy, mini-mental state examination (MMSE), walking evaluation, comorbidity), subjective evaluation of risk of falls and glomerular filtration rate. The thromboembolic risk and the bleeding risk, evaluated subjectively for each patient, were compared with two scores of thrombo-embolic risk and bleeding risk. The evolution of the patients was recorded after 3 months. Student's t-test and chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis. One hundred and two patients (48.8%) received anticoagulant and 107 patients received aspirin. Patients in the aspirin group were significantly older (86.5 +/- 6.5 vs. 82.9 +/- 7.1 years), with more frequent social isolation, higher systolic blood pressure, and had more important subjective bleeding risk and risk of falls. Patients in the anticoagulant group had significantly more valvulopathies and a more important subjective thromboembolic risk. Thrombo-phlebitis antecedents, dementia, denutrition and walking alterations were only slightly more frequent in patients in the aspirin group. Physicians underestimated thromboembolic risk (one-third of patients) and they overestimated bleeding risk (half of the patients). After 3 months, the two groups did not significantly differ for death, bleeding or ischaemic events. In common practice, the decision of antithrombotic treatment for AF should take into account not only cardiovascular but also geriatric criteria.