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.

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.

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.

Double-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Clopidogrel According to Smoking Status Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel ("smoker's paradox"). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT-OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double-dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2-7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome (P=0.031) and major bleeding (P=0.002). Double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.87, P=0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80-1.14, P=0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48-1.24, P=0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double-dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37-2.60, P<0.0001). Double-dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42-0.93; P for interaction=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In smokers, a double-dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452.