Antiplatelet therapy for treatment of coronary artery disease in older patients.

Coronary artery disease in older patients is more frequently diffuse and complex, and is often treated by percutaneous coronary intervention on top of medical therapy. There are currently no specific recommendations for antiplatelet therapy in patients aged≥75 years. Aspirin remains pivotal, and is still indicated as a long-term treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention. In addition, a P2Y12 inhibitor is administered for 6-12 months according to clinical presentation. Age is a minor bleeding risk factor, but because older patients often have several co-morbidities, they are considered as having a high bleeding risk according to different scoring systems. This increased bleeding risk has resulted in different therapeutic strategies for antithrombotic treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention; these include short dual antiplatelet therapy, a switch from potent to less potent antiplatelet therapy or single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor instead of aspirin, among others. A patient-centred approach, taking into account health status, functional ability, frailty, cognitive skills, bleeding and ischaemic risks and patient preference, is essential when caring for older adults with coronary artery disease. The present review focuses on the knowledge base, specificities of antiplatelet therapies, a balance between haemorrhagic and ischaemic risk, strategies for antiplatelet therapy and directions for future investigation pertaining to coronary artery disease in older patients.

Evolution of Coronary Stent Platforms: A Brief Overview of Currently Used Drug-Eluting Stents.

Cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease, is the leading cause of death worldwide, and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) have been demonstrated to improve the prognosis of these patients on top of optimal medical therapy. PCIs have evolved from plain old balloon angioplasty to coronary stent implantation at the end of the last century. There has been a constant technical and scientific improvement in stent technology from bare metal stents to the era of drug-eluting stents (DESs) to overcome clinical challenges such as target lesion failure related to in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of these adverse events has led DESs to evolve from first-generation DESs to thinner and ultrathin third-generation DESs with improved polymer biocompatibility that seems to have reached a peak in efficiency. This review aims to provide a brief historical overview of the evolution of coronary DES platforms and an update on clinical studies and major characteristics of the most currently used DESs.

Intracoronary imaging in addition to coronary angiography for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: More information for better care?

About 70% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are related to an ischaemic heart disease in Western countries. Percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to improve the prognosis of survivors when an unstable coronary lesion is identified as the potential cause of the cardiac arrest. Acute complete coronary occlusion is often demonstrated among patients with ST-segment elevation on electrocardiogram after the return of spontaneous circulation. In patients without ST-segment elevation, routine coronary angiography has been shown to be not superior to conservative management. However, an electrocardiogram-based decision to perform immediate coronary angiography could be insufficient to identify unstable coronary lesions, which are frequently associated with intermediate coronary stenosis. Intracoronary imaging can be helpful to detect plaque rupture or erosion and intracoronary thrombus, but could also lead to better stent implantation, and help to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis. In patients with coronary lesions without the instability characteristic, conservative management should be the default strategy, and a search for another cause of the cardiac arrest should be systematic. In the present review, we sought to describe the potential benefit of intracoronary imaging in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Initiation and development of a percutaneous left atrial appendage closure programme: A French centre's experience and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure may be considered in selected patients with atrial fibrillation at significant risk of both thromboembolism and haemorrhage. AIMS: To report the experience of a tertiary French centre in percutaneous left atrial appendage closure and to discuss the outcomes compared with previously published series. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients referred for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure between 2014 and 2020. Patient characteristics, procedural management and outcomes were reported, and the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events during follow-up were compared with historical incidence rates. RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients had left atrial appendage closure (mean age 75.3±8.6 years; 68% men; CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.8±1.5 ; HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.1), with a 97.6% (n=202) success rate. Twenty (9.7%) patients had at least one significant periprocedural complication, including six (2.9%) tamponades and three (1.4%) thromboembolisms. Periprocedural complication rates decreased from earlier to more recent periods (from 13% before 2018 to 5.9% after; P=0.07). During a mean follow-up of 23.1±20.2 months, 11 thromboembolic events were observed (2.8% per patient-year), a 72% risk reduction compared with the estimated theoretical annual risk. Conversely, 21 (10%) patients experienced bleeding during follow-up, with almost half of the events occurring during the first 3 months. After the first 3 months, the risk of major bleeding was 4.0% per patient-year, a 31% risk reduction compared with the expected estimated risk. CONCLUSION: This real-world evaluation emphasizes the feasibility and benefit of left atrial appendage closure, but also illustrates the need for multidisciplinary expertise to initiate and develop this activity.

Performance of stent thrombosis and bleeding risk scores in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) due to acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of bleeding and thrombosis. While predictive bleeding and stent thrombosis risk scores have been established, their performance in patients with OHCA has not been evaluated. METHODS: All consecutive patients admitted for OHCA due to ACS who underwent PCI between January 2007 and December 2019 were included. The ACTION and CRUSADE bleeding risk scores and the Dangas score for early stent thrombosis risk were calculated for each patient. A C-statistic analysis was performed to assess the performance of these scores. RESULTS: Among 386 included patients, 82 patients (21.2%) experienced severe bleeding and 30 patients (7.8%) experienced stent thrombosis. The predictive performance of the ACTION and CRUSADE bleeding risk scores for major bleeding was poor, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.596 and 0.548, respectively. Likewise, the predictive performance of the Dangas stent thrombosis risk score was poor (AUC 0.513). Using multivariable analysis, prolonged low-flow (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.05; P=0.025), reduced haematocrit or fibrinogen at admission (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.98; P=0.010 and OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.89; P=0.012, respectively) and the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.18-3.73; P=0.011) were independent risk factors for major bleeding. CONCLUSION: The classic bleeding and stent thrombosis risk scores have poor performance in a population of patients with ACS complicated by OHCA. Other predictive factors might be more pertinent to determine major bleeding and stent thrombosis risks in this specific population.

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Thrombotic and bleeding events among different oral P2Y12 inhibitor regimens.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are at high thrombotic and bleeding risk. The type of antiplatelet that should be used in these patients remains controversial. AIM: To compare the impact of the use of more potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors on thrombotic and bleeding events with that of clopidogrel in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: This was an observational study including consecutive patients treated for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest associated with acute coronary syndrome by percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation and dual antiplatelet therapy between January 2007 and December 2017. Baseline characteristics, mortality and in-hospital haemorrhagic and thrombotic events were compared between patients who received clopidogrel and those who received more potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. RESULTS: Among the 359 included patients, 197 received clopidogrel and 162 received ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary composite endpoint of death, definite stent thrombosis or major bleeding was similar in the two groups (57.4% in the clopidogrel group vs. 53.7% in the new P2Y12 receptor inhibitors group; P=0.49). Fewer haemorrhagic events occurred in the clopidogrel group (21.8% vs. 31.5%; P=0.04), whereas similar rates of definite stent thrombosis were observed (5.1% vs. 6.2%; P=0.65). The use of more potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors was an independent predictor of major bleeding (odds ratio 2.69, 95% confidence interval 1.37-5.25; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In this specific population, the use of more potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors was not associated with a reduced thrombosis rate compared with clopidogrel, but with a higher haemorrhagic risk. Prospective studies should be performed on the optimal antithrombotic therapy in this subset of patients.

Safety and benefit of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of both stent thrombosis and bleeding. The use of aggressive antiplatelet therapy could lead to a higher risk of bleeding in these patients. Indeed, data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPi) use in this specific indication is scarce. AIM: We sought to evaluate the benefit and safety of GPi use in OHCA patients requiring PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2007 and December 2017, we retrospectively included all consecutive patients treated with PCI for an OHCA from cardiac cause. Clinical, procedural data and in-hospital outcomes were collected. Three hundred and eighty-five patients were included. GPi were administrated in 41.3% of cases (159 patients). Patients who received GPi were younger, had less prior PCI, more often a TIMI 0 or 1 flow before PCI and thromboaspiration use. There were no differences regarding in-hospital definite stent thrombosis among the two groups (11.9% in the GPi group vs 7.1% in the non-GPi group, p = 0.10) or in-hospital mortality (48.6% vs 49.3%, p = 0.68). The incidence of any bleeding (33.3% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.002), and major bleeding (BARC 3-5) (21.9% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.007) was significantly higher in patients receiving GPi. Indeed, using multivariate analysis, GPi use was predictor of major bleeding (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.06-3.08; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with PCI for OHCA from cardiac cause, GPi use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events, without difference on in-hospital stent thrombosis or death.

The balance of thrombosis and hemorrhage in STEMI patients with or without associated cardiac arrest: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Data is scarce on hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) associated with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: This is a monocentric, retrospective study conducted from January 2012 to December 2017 in a tertiary university hospital, which serves as a cardiac arrest center for a large urban area. Over the study period, all consecutive patients who were treated with stent implantation for STEMI with or without OHCA were included. Baseline characteristics, treatments, hemorrhagic and thrombotic events were compared between STEMI patients with and without OHCA. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed in order to identify predictors of 30-day mortality, occurrence of major bleeding (MB), and early stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: A total of 549 patients treated for STEMI without OHCA and 146 patients for STEMI with OHCA were included. The incidence of definite ST and MB after coronary angioplasty was significantly higher in patients with OHCA (2.6% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.004 and 3.3% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.001, respectively). Independent predictors of MB in OHCA patients were anticoagulation therapy (HR = 3.11, 95%CI [1.22-7.98], p = 0.02) and the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR = 4.16, 95%CI [1.61-10.79], p = 0.003). Independent predictors of mortality in OHCA patients were age (HR = 1.05, 95%CI [1.02-1.09], p = 0.004) and ST (HR = 5.62, 95%CI [1.61-19.65], p = 0.007, with a protective effect of new anti-P2Y12 treatments (HR = 0.20, 95%CI [0.08-0.46], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients treated for STEMI associated with OHCA are at higher-risk of ST and MB than those who did not experience cardiac arrest. In this subset of patients, prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the balance of thrombosis and hemorrhage.