Peripheral arterial disease has a strong impact on cardiovascular outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes: from the START Antiplatelet registry.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was reported to increase the risk of new cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, most of the evidence comes from randomized clinical trials. We aimed to assess the impact of PAD on cardiovascular outcome and treatment decisions in ACS patients in a current real-life setting. METHODS: START-ANTIPLATELET is a multicenter registry enrolling ACS patient. Baseline clinical characteristics and treatment at discharge were recorded and follow-up was repeated at 6-months and 1-year. PAD was defined as intermittent claudication and/or previous revascularization. RESULTS: Among 1442 patients enrolled, 103 (7.1%) had PAD. PAD patients were older (71.8 ± 10.6vs66.2 ± 12.6 yrs., p < 0.0001), more frequently hypertensive (90.3vs68.6%, p< 0.0001), hypercholesterolemic (66vs52%, p= 0.037), diabetic (51.5vs24%, p= 0.0001), obese (28.2vs19.3%, p= 0.029) and with previous TIA (7.8vs2.8%, p= 0.005) or stroke (11.7vs3.1%, p< 0.0001). Clinical presentation and acute treatment were similar in non-PAD and PAD patients, but the latter were discharged significantly less frequently on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (68.9vs85%, p= 0.005). After a median follow-up time of 11.1 months, major cardio/cerebrovascular event-free survival [MACCE, including cardiovascular death, MI, TIA and stroke, target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and major arterial ischemic events] was significantly shorter (9.0vs11.2 months, p= 0.02; HR 3.2, 2.4-8.4) in PAD patients and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE = MACCE plus major hemorrhages) were significantly more frequent (19.1%vs10.5%, p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: PAD identifies a subgroup of ACS patients at significantly increased cardiovascular risk, but these patients tend to be undertreated. Patients admitted for ACS should be screened for PAD and optimal medical therapy at discharge should be implemented.

Left bundle branch block, chest pain and catheterization laboratory activation: an unavoidable cascade reaction?

Identification of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) remains challenging. European guidelines recommend prompt reperfusion therapy in patients with suspected ongoing myocardial ischemia and new or presumably new LBBB, whereas AHA/ACC guidelines state that LBBB should not be considered diagnostic of AMI in isolation. Sgarbossa criteria and their recent modified version with the introduction of ST/S ratio can be helpful in this setting. A clinical-instrumental algorithm to manage suspected AMI in the presence of LBBB has been recently proposed. We present five paradigmatic clinical cases.

Incomplete inhibition of platelet function as assessed by the platelet function analyzer (PFA-100) identifies a subset of cardiovascular patients with high residual platelet response while on aspirin.

Sixty-six patients with a history of ischemic events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or stroke) on chronic aspirin therapy were studied by different platelet function tests: 37 patients had suffered a recurrent event while on aspirin and 29 were without recurrences. Based on results from light transmission aggregometry (LTA) induced by arachidonic acid (AA) and serum TxB(2) both COX-1-dependent methods, only one patient could be identified as aspirin "resistant". However, when methods only partially-dependent on platelet COX-1 activity were considered, the prevalence of aspirin non-responders ranged, according to the different tests, from 0 to 52%. No difference was observed between patients with recurrences and those without. Among patients with recurrent events, those with an incomplete inhibition of platelet function, as assessed by the PFA-100, had significantly higher residual serum TxB(2) (2.4 ± 2.4 ng/mL vs 0.4 ± 0.1 ng/mL, p = 0.03), residual LTA-AA (9.2 ± 10.6% vs 2.0 ± 1.6%, p = 0.008), LTA-Coll (49.3 ± 14.6% vs 10.2 ± 8.3%, p = 0.007) and LTA-ADP (50.9 ± 16.2% vs 34.3 ± 11.0%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, laboratory tests solely exploring the AA-mediated pathway of platelet function, while being the most appropriate to detect the effect of aspirin on its pharmacologic target (platelet COX-1), may fail to reveal the functional interactions between minimal residual TxA(2) and additional stimuli or primers potentially leading to aspirin-insensitive platelet aggregation. High residual platelet response in platelet function tests only partially dependent on COX-1 may reveal a condition of persistent platelet reactivity in a subset of aspirin-treated patients characterizing them as a subgroup at higher vascular risk.