Temporal analysis of non-ST segment elevation-acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) outcomes in 'young' patients under the age of fifty: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics and risk factor profile of young patients presenting with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and how they may have changed over time is not well reported. METHODS: We identified 26,708 NSTEACS patients aged under 50 presenting to United Kingdom (UK) hospitals between 2010 and 2017 from Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP). We calculated incidence of NSTEACS per 100,000 UK population, using Office of National Statistics (ONS) population estimates, prevalence of comorbidities, ethnicity, and in-hospital mortality. We formed biennial groups to enable comparison, 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015 and 2016-2017. RESULTS: The incidence of NSTEACS per 100,000 population showed minimal change between 2010 and 2017 (2010: 5.4 per 100,000 and 2017; 4.9 per 100,000). Rates of smoking (2010-11; 58% and 2016-17; 53%), and family history of coronary artery disease (CAD) (2010-11; 51% and 2016-17; 44%) fell, but the proportion of patients from an ethnic minority background (2010-11; 12% and 2016-17; 20%), with diabetes mellitus (DM) (2010-11; 14%, and 2016-17; 18%) and female patients (2010-11; 22% and 2016-17; 24%) increased over the study period. Mortality from NSTEACS remained unchanged (2010-11; 1% and 2016-17; 1%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of NSTEACS in patients aged under fifty has not reduced despite reduction in prevalence of risk factors such as smoking hypercholesterolaemia in those admitted to UK hospitals. Despite improved rates of early invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in 'young' NSTEACS patients, in-hospital mortality remains unchanged.

Overcoming professional barriers encountered by women in interventional cardiology: an EAPCI statement.

Despite the increasing proportion of female medical and nursing students, there is still a significant under-representation of women working as healthcare providers in interventional cardiology, with very few of them reaching senior leadership, academic positions, or acting principal investigators, as well as actively involved in company advisory boards. In this position paper, we will describe the current status of women working in interventional cardiology across Europe. We will also provide an overview of the most relevant determinants of the under-representation of women at each stage of the interventional cardiology career path and offer practical suggestions for overcoming these challenges.

Radiation protection for healthcare professionals working in catheterisation laboratories during pregnancy: a statement of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), the ESC Regulatory Affairs Committee and Women as One.

The European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Regulatory Affairs Committee and Women as One support continuous review and improvement, not only in the practice of assuring patients a high quality of care but also in providing health professionals with support documents to help them in their career and enhance gender equity. Recent surveys have revealed that radiation exposure is commonly reported as the primary barrier for women pursuing a career in interventional cardiology or cardiac electrophysiology (EP). The fear of foetal exposure to radiation during pregnancy may lead to a prolonged interruption in their career. Accordingly, this joint statement aims to provide a clear statement on radiation risk and the existing data on the experience of radiation-exposed cardiologists who continue to work in catheterisation laboratories (cath labs) throughout their pregnancies. In order to reduce the barrier preventing women from accessing these careers, increased knowledge in the community is warranted. Finally, by going beyond simple observations and review of the literature, our document suggests proposals for improving workplace safety and for encouraging equity.

Performing elective cardiac invasive procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak: a position statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI).

The rearrangement of healthcare services required to face the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a drastic reduction in elective cardiac invasive procedures. We are already facing a "second wave" of infections and we might be dealing during the next months with a "third wave" and subsequently new waves. Therefore, during the different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic we have to face the problems of how to perform elective cardiac invasive procedures in non-COVID patients and which patients/procedures should be prioritised. In this context, the interplay between the pandemic stage, the availability of healthcare resources and the priority of specific cardiac disorders is crucial. Clear pathways for "hot" or presumed "hot" patients and "cold" patients are mandatory in each hospital. Depending on the local testing capacity and intensity of transmission in the area, healthcare facilities may test patients for SARS-CoV-2 infection before the interventional procedure, regardless of risk assessment for COVID-19. Pre-hospital testing should always be conducted in the presence of symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 positive patients, full personal protective equipment using FFP 2/N95 masks, eye protection, gowning and gloves is indicated during cardiac interventions for healthcare workers. When patients have tested negative for COVID-19, medical masks may be sufficient. Indeed, individual patients should themselves wear medical masks during cardiac interventions and outpatient visits.

An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group.

This consensus document, a summary of the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), appraises the importance of ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries (INOCA). Angina pectoris affects approximately 112 million people globally. Up to 70% of patients undergoing invasive angiography do not have obstructive coronary artery disease, more common in women than in men, and a large proportion have INOCA as a cause of their symptoms. INOCA patients present with a wide spectrum of symptoms and signs that are often misdiagnosed as non-cardiac leading to under-diagnosis/investigation and under-treatment. INOCA can result from heterogeneous mechanism including coronary vasospasm and microvascular dysfunction and is not a benign condition. Compared to asymptomatic individuals, INOCA is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events, repeated hospital admissions, as well as impaired quality of life and associated increased health care costs. This consensus document provides a definition of INOCA and guidance to the community on the diagnostic approach and management of INOCA based on existing evidence from research and best available clinical practice; noting gaps in knowledge and potential areas for further investigation.

Diagnostic Angiograms and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Pregnancy.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading indirect cause of maternal mortality in the UK. Pregnancy increases the risk of acute MI (AMI) by three- to fourfold secondary to the profound physiological changes that place an extra burden on the cardiovascular system. AMI is not always recognised in pregnancy and there is concern among both clinicians and patients regarding catheter-based interventions due to fears of foetal irradiation and risks to the foetus. This article evaluates the current state of knowledge on AMI in pregnancy with particular emphasis on pregnancy-associated spontaneous coronary artery dissection and percutaneous coronary intervention as the revascularisation procedure for AMI. Special considerations that must be made in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention for pregnancy-associated spontaneous coronary artery dissection and the current recommendations on arterial access, methods of minimising radiation and stent selection are discussed.

EAPCI Position Statement on Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to healthcare worldwide. The infection can be life threatening and require intensive care treatment. The transmission of the disease poses a risk to both patients and healthcare workers. The number of patients requiring hospital admission and intensive care may overwhelm health systems and negatively affect standard care for patients presenting with conditions needing emergency interventions. This position statements aims to assist cardiologists in the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To that end, we assembled a panel of interventional cardiologists and acute cardiac care specialists appointed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACVC) and included the experience from the first and worst affected areas in Europe. Modified diagnostic and treatment algorithms are proposed to adapt evidence-based protocols for this unprecedented challenge. Various clinical scenarios, as well as management algorithms for patients with a diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 infection, presenting with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation ACS are described. In addition, we address the need for re-organization of ACS networks, with redistribution of hub and spoke hospitals, as well as for in-hospital reorganization of emergency rooms and cardiac units, with examples coming from multiple European countries. Furthermore, we provide a guidance to reorganization of catheterization laboratories and, importantly, measures for protection of healthcare providers involved with invasive procedures.

EAPCI Position Statement on Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to healthcare worldwide. The infection can be life threatening and require intensive care treatment. The transmission of the disease poses a risk to both patients and healthcare workers. The number of patients requiring hospital admission and intensive care may overwhelm health systems and negatively affect standard care for patients presenting with conditions needing emergency interventions. This position statements aims to assist cardiologists in the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To that end, we assembled a panel of interventional cardiologists and acute cardiac care specialists appointed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACVC) and included the experience from the first and worst affected areas in Europe. Modified diagnostic and treatment algorithms are proposed to adapt evidence-based protocols for this unprecedented challenge. Various clinical scenarios, as well as management algorithms for patients with a diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 infection, presenting with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation ACS are described. In addition, we address the need for re-organization of ACS networks, with redistribution of hub and spoke hospitals, as well as for in-hospital reorganization of emergency rooms and cardiac units, with examples coming from multiple European countries. Furthermore, we provide a guidance to reorganization of catheterization laboratories and, importantly, measures for protection of healthcare providers involved with invasive procedures.

Is there Sex-related Outcome Difference According to oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 107,126 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The majority of patients included in trials of anti-platelet therapy are male. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether, in addition to aspirin, P2Y12 blockade is beneficial in both women and men with acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched and nine eligible randomised controlled studies were identified that had sex-specific clinical outcomes (n=107,126 patients). Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke (MACE), and a safety endpoint of major bleeding for each sex. Indirect comparison analysis was performed to statistically compare ticagrelor against prasugrel. RESULTS: Compared to aspirin alone, clopidogrel reduced MACE in men (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92; p=0.003), but was not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02, p=0.08). Clopidogrel therapy significantly increased bleeding in women but not men. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel was beneficial in men (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02) but not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.30); ticagrelor reduced MACE in both men (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; p=0.001) and women (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02). Indirect comparison demonstrated no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in either sex. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel increased bleeding risk in both women and men. CONCLUSION: In summary, in comparison to monotherapy with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce MACE in women and men. Ticagrelor was shown to be superior to clopidogrel in both sexes. Prasugrel showed a statistically significant benefit only in men; however indirect comparison did not demonstrate superiority of ticagrelor over prasugrel in women.

Percutaneous coronary and structural interventions in women: a position statement from the EAPCI Women Committee.

Several expert documents on sex-based differences in interventional outcomes are now available, however this is the first position paper from the EAPCI Women Committee discussing the potential influence of sex in the percutaneous treatment of coronary and structural heart disease. Despite the misconception that coronary artery disease is a 'man's disease', contemporary data shows a growing incidence in women. However, women are under-represented in randomised coronary clinical trials (~25%). The generalisation of such studies is therefore problematic in decision-making for females undergoing coronary intervention. Differences in pathophysiology between sexes exist, highlighting the need for greater awareness amongst healthcare professionals to enable best evidence-based therapies for women as well as for men. Reassuringly, women represent half of the population included in transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials and may actually benefit more. Growing evidence is also emerging for other interventional atrial procedures which may well be advantageous to women. Awareness of sex disparities is increasing, and we must all work collaboratively within our profession to ensure we provide effective care for all patients with heart disease. The EAPCI Women Committee aim to highlight such issues through this position paper and through visibility within the interventional community.

Is There Still a Survival Advantage to Bypass Surgery Over Percutaneous Intervention in the Modern Era?

The method of revascularization for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVD) has traditionally been coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), however, due to recent advances in the field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), this latter technique has gained in popularity and its role in guidelines has been promoted. This review aims to address the current data available for the treatment of patients with complex coronary disease, including the specific disease subset in those with diabetes mellitus, focusing on the importance of risk stratification and review by the 'Heart Team'. The concept of complete versus incomplete revascularization and the assessment of lesions utilizing functional techniques are discussed. Over recent years, PCI has grown to become the most frequently performed therapeutic intervention in medicine and continues to grow. There are encouraging data that this is an effective and safe treatment option in selected patients, however, neither strategy alone can provide a solution for the entire spectrum of patients with MVD.

Drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with acute coronary syndrome - the Activity of Platelets after Inhibition and Cardiovascular Events: Optical Coherence Tomography (APICE OCT) study.

AIMS: To our knowledge, no randomised study has compared rates of uncovered stent struts in everolimus (EES) vs. new-generation zotarolimus-eluting (ZES-R) stents in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of our study was to evaluate the completeness of neointimal coverage with optical coherence tomography (OCT) in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) comparing EES versus new-generation ZES-R. METHODS AND RESULTS: All eligible ACS patients admitted to four Italian centres with a clinical indication for culprit lesion intervention were randomised 1:1 to EES or ZES-R. The primary study endpoint was the percentage of uncovered stent struts evaluated by optical coherence tomography (OCT) at six months. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of malapposed stent struts, percent neointimal hyperplasia cross-sectional area (CSA) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at six months. A total of 60 patients were randomised to EES (n=29) or ZES-R (n=31). No differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall, 31.7% presented with STEMI, of which 68.4% were anterior. The other patients comprised 41.7% NSTEMI and 26.7% troponin-negative ACS. A mean of 1.3±0.6 lesions were treated per patient, with a mean of 1.3±0.5 stents per lesion. At 30 days there was one sudden death. Six-month OCT analysis was performed in 25 lesions in the EES group and in 24 lesions in the ZES-R group. There was no difference in the primary endpoint of uncovered stent struts between groups (EES 6.42% [3.27, 9.57] vs. ZES-R 7.07% [3.22, 10.92]; p=0.80). Furthermore, there were no differences between groups in the percentage of malapposed stent struts, either with (EES 1.19% [0.34, 2.04] vs. ZES-R 0.85% [0.40, 1.30]; p=0.49) or without coverage (EES 1.06% [0.12, 2.01] vs. ZES-R 0.24% [0.05, 0.44]; p=0.09). Percent neointima CSA was similar in both groups (EES 37.0% [18.6, 55.3] vs. ZES-R 26.6% [18.4, 34.8]; p=0.31). At six-month clinical follow-up, no additional patients died or suffered MI. There were four MACE in the EES group and one in the ZES-R group. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, in patients presenting with ACS, both EES and ZES-R had low percentages of malapposed and uncovered stent struts at six-month OCT analysis.

Elección de intervención coronaria percutánea obypass en la enfermedad coronaria multivaso / Decision Making Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Bypass Surgery in Multi-vessel Coronary Disease

No disponible

Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention (with drug-eluting stents) versus coronary artery bypass grafting in women with severe narrowing of the left main coronary artery (from the Women-Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease Registry).

Women typically present with coronary artery disease later than men with more unfavorable clinical and anatomic characteristics. It is unknown whether differences exist in women undergoing treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Our aim was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). All consecutive women from the Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease registry with ULMCA disease were analyzed. A propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. In total, 817 women were included: 489 (59.8%) underwent treatment with PCI with drug-eluting stents versus 328 (40.2%) with CABG. Propensity score matching identified 175 matched pairs, and at long-term follow-up there were no differences in all-cause (odds ratio [OR] 0.722, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.357 to 1.461, p=0.365) or cardiovascular (OR 1.100, 95% CI 0.455 to 2.660, p=0.832) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI; OR 0.362, 95% CI 0.094 to 1.388, p=0.138), or cerebrovascular accident (CVA; OR 1.200, 95% CI 0.359 to 4.007, p=0.767) resulting in no difference in the primary study objective of death, MI, or CVA (OR 0.711, 95% CI 0.387 to 1.308, p=0.273). However, there was an advantage of CABG in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.254 to 0.723, p=0.001), driven exclusively by target vessel revascularization (OR 0.185, 95% CI 0.079 to 0.432, p<0.001). In women with significant ULMCA disease, no difference was observed after PCI or CABG in death, MI, and CVA at long-term follow-up.