2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Complete Revascularization vs Culprit Lesion-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Angina-Related Quality of Life in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results From the COMPLETE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. Objective: To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Interventions: Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Results: Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

Premature Discontinuation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Veterans: Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes.

Background Premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention is related to higher short-term risks of adverse outcomes. Whether these risks persist in the long-term is uncertain. Methods and Results We assessed all patients having percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary second- or first-generation drug-eluting stents in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system between 2006 and 2012 who were free of major ischemic or bleeding events in the first 12 months. The characteristics of patients who stopped DAPT prematurely (1-9 months duration), compared with >9 to 12 months, or extended duration (>12 months) were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) from multivariable logistic models. The risk of adverse clinical outcomes over a mean 5.1 years in patients who stopped DAPT prematurely was assessed by hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs from Cox regression models. A total of 14 239 had second-generation drug-eluting stents, and 8583 had first-generation drug-eluting stents. Premature discontinuation of DAPT was more likely in Black patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68), patients with greater frailty (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), and patients with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and less likely in patients on statins (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95). Patients who stopped DAPT prematurely had higher long-term risks of death (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.56), myocardial infarction (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74), and repeated coronary revascularization (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.41). Conclusions Patients who stop DAPT prematurely have features that reflect greater frailty, poorer medication use, and other social factors. They continue to have higher risks of major adverse outcomes over the long-term and may require more intensive surveillance many years after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Prevalence, clinical determinants and prognostic implications of coronary procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the contemporary multinational TAO trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of acute coronary syndrome in the contemporary era. AIM: We sought to describe the prevalence of procedural complications of PCI in a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) cohort, and to identify their clinical characteristics and association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients randomized in TAO (Treatment of Acute coronary syndrome with Otamixaban), an international randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01076764) that compared otamixaban with unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide in patients with NSTE ACS who underwent PCI, were included in the analysis. Procedural complications were collected prospectively, categorized and adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee, with review of angiograms. A multivariable model was constructed to identify independent clinical characteristics associated with procedural complications. RESULTS: A total of 8656 patients with NSTE ACS who were enrolled in the TAO trial underwent PCI, and 451 (5.2%) experienced at least one complication. The most frequent complications were no/slow reflow (1.5%) and dissection with decreased flow (1.2%). Procedural complications were associated with the 7-day ischaemic outcome of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (24.2% vs. 6.0%, odds ratio 5.01, 95% confidence interval 3.96-6.33; P<0.0001) and with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major and minor bleeding (6.2% vs. 2.3%, odds ratio 2.79, 95% confidence interval 1.86-4.2; P<0.0001). Except for previous coronary artery bypass grafting, multivariable analysis did not identify preprocedural clinical predictors of complications. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary NSTE ACS population, procedural complications with PCI remain frequent, are difficult to predict based on clinical characteristics, and are associated with worse ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes.

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.

Antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction without obstructive coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 10% of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) have no obstructive coronary artery disease. The prognosis and role of intensified antiplatelet therapy in those patients were evaluated. METHODS: We analysed data from the Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organisation to Assess Strategies in Ischaemic Symptoms trial randomising patients with ACS referred for early intervention to receive either double-dose (600 mg, day 1; 150 mg, days 2-7; then 75 mg/day) or standard-dose (300 mg, day 1; then 75 mg/day) clopidogrel. Outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) versus those with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and their relation to standard-dose versus double-dose clopidogrel were evaluated. The primary outcome was cardiovascular (CV) death, MI or stroke at 30 days. RESULTS: We included 23 783 patients with MI and 1599 (6.7%) with MINOCA. Patients with MINOCA were younger, presented more frequently with non-ST-segment elevation MI and had fewer comorbidities. All-cause mortality (0.6% vs 2.3%, p=0.005), CV mortality (0.6% vs 2.2%, p=0.006), repeat MI (0.5% vs 2.3%, p=0.001) and major bleeding (0.6% vs 2.4%, p<0.0001) were lower among patients with MINOCA than among those with obstructive CAD. Among patients with MINOCA, 2.1% of patients in the double-dose clopidogrel group and 0.6% in the standard-dose group experienced a primary outcome (HR 3.57, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.76), whereas in those with obstructive CAD, rates were 4.3% and 4.7%, respectively (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03; p value for interaction=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MINOCA are at lower risk of recurrent CV events compared with patients with MI with obstructive CAD. Compared with a standard clopidogrel-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen, an intensified dosing strategy appears to offer no additional benefit with a signal of possible harm. Further randomised trials evaluating the effects of potent DAPT in patients with MINOCA are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00335452.

Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.). (AU)

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing PCI: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Most patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and risk factors for stroke require oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke or systemic embolism. This is now best achieved with direct oral anticoagulants that decrease the risk of intracranial bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists. Of note, approximately 5% to 10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have AF, which complicates antithrombotic therapy in daily practice, because the guidelines recommend that these patients also receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to reduce the risk of ischemic complications. However, combining OAC with DAPT, a strategy also known as triple antithrombotic therapy, is known to increase the risk of bleeding compared with the use of OAC or DAPT alone. Studies of direct oral anticoagulants are now emerging that show the favorable safety profile of double antithrombotic therapy with OAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor in comparison with triple antithrombotic therapy including the use of vitamin K antagonists. The scope of this review is to provide an update on this topic as well as to discuss future directions in the management of antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in AF patients requiring chronic OAC.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective-2018 Update.

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation represents a challenge in clinical practice. In 2016, an updated opinion of selected experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was reported. After the 2016 North American consensus statement on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, results of pivotal clinical trials assessing the type of oral anticoagulant agent and the duration of antiplatelet treatment have been published. On the basis of these results, this focused update on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommends that a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant be preferred over a vitamin K antagonist as the oral anticoagulant of choice. Moreover, a double-therapy regimen (oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor) by the time of hospital discharge should be considered for most patients, whereas extending the use of aspirin beyond hospital discharge (ie, triple therapy) should be considered only for selected patients at high ischemic/thrombotic and low bleeding risks and for a limited period of time. The present document provides a focused updated on the rationale for the new expert consensus-derived recommendations on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Evaluation of a transitional care pharmacist intervention in a high-risk cardiovascular patient population.

PURPOSE: The utility of a transitions-of-care (TOC) pharmacist intervention focused on improving the quality and safety of the medication process for high-risk cardiovascular patients was evaluated. METHODS: A quality-improvement initiative was developed for patients with heart failure or acute coronary syndrome followed longitudinally at a hospital's outpatient cardiovascular clinic. The TOC pharmacist intervention occurred either before a patient's outpatient cardiovascular clinic appointment or during a hospitalization. The major outcome analyzed was the number of unplanned hospital readmissions within 30 days. Additional endpoints evaluated included the time to healthcare utilization, number of medication discrepancies identified, percentage of therapeutic recommendations accepted by a provider, number of medication access issues resolved, patient cost savings, patient satisfaction, and mean time spent on an intervention by the pharmacist per patient encounter. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients received the TOC pharmacist intervention. A total of 516 medication discrepancies were identified and corrected, with 55.6% of discrepancies involving cardiovascular medications. A total of 244 recommendations for therapeutic optimization were provided, with an 81% provider acceptance rate and a 100% patient satisfaction rate. Fifty-five patients were provided with medication cost savings, and medication-access issues were resolved for 8 patients. A TOC pharmacist spent means of 98 and 73 minutes on patient education and coordination of care during inpatient and ambulatory encounters, respectively. The 30-day hospital readmission rate for patients with heart failure was reduced by 20%. CONCLUSION: A TOC pharmacist intervention improved the quality and safety of care across both inpatient and ambulatory settings for high-risk cardiovascular patients at our institution.