Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation in Severe Aortic Stenosis　- Insights From the CURRENT AS Registry-2.

BACKGROUND: Data on concomitant mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) are scarce.Methods and Results: We investigated the risk of concomitant MR in patients with severe AS in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 according to initial treatment strategy (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI], surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR], or conservative). Among 3,365 patients with severe AS, 384 (11.4%) had moderate/severe MR (TAVI: n=126/1,148; SAVR: n=68/591; conservative: n=190/1,626). The cumulative 3-year incidence for death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization was significantly higher in the moderate/severe than no/mild MR group in the entire population (54.6% vs. 34.3%, respectively; P<0.001) and for each treatment strategy (TAVI: 45.0% vs. 31.8% [P=0.006]; SAVR: 31.9% vs. 18.7% [P<0.001]; conservative: 67.8% vs. 41.6% [P<0.001]). The higher adjusted risk of moderate/severe MR relative to no/mild MR for death or HF hospitalization was not significant in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.39; P=0.15); however, the risk was significant in the SAVR (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.04-3.56; P=0.04) and conservative (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.67; P=0.04) groups, but not in the TAVI group (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.70-1.52; P=0.86), despite no significant interaction (Pinteraction=0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe MR was associated with a higher risk for death or HF hospitalization in the initial SAVR and conservative strategies, while the association was less pronounced in the initial TAVI strategy.

Atrial fibrillation-induced cardiomyopathy presenting with bilateral intermittent claudication associated with intracardiac thrombi.

Systemic thromboembolism associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) is usually caused by thrombi in the left atrial appendage and acute onset. We experienced an unusual case of a woman in her 60s who presented to the outpatient district having bilateral intermittent claudication for more than 1 month, which turned out to be multiple thromboembolism from asymptomatic AF with tachycardia. She was also complicated with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction, consistent with arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AiCM), along with left atrial and left ventricular thrombi and thromboembolism in multiple organs. Rate control with beta-blockers was not effective. With the administration of amiodarone after adequate anticoagulation therapy, she returned to sinus rhythm, and the ejection fraction was restored. This case is instructive in that AiCM with AF can cause thrombosis in the left ventricle, and the patient may present with worsening intermittent claudication as a result of systemic embolism.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding. Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Aspirin-free strategy for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome based on the subtypes of acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk: the STOPDAPT-3 trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High bleeding risk (HBR) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subtypes are critical in determining bleeding and cardiovascular event risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In 4476 ACS patients enrolled in the STOPDAPT-3, where the no-aspirin and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies after PCI were randomly compared, the pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on HBR/non-HBR and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)/non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). The co-primary bleeding endpoint was BARC type 3 or 5, and the co-primary cardiovascular endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke at 1 month. RESULTS: Irrespective of the subgroups, the effect of no-aspirin compared with DAPT was not significant for the bleeding endpoint (HBR [N = 1803]: 7.27% and 7.91%, HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.65-1.28; non-HBR [N = 2673]: 3.40% and 3.65%, HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.62-1.39; Pinteraction = 0.94; STEMI [N = 2553]: 6.58% and 6.56%, HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74-1.35; NSTE-ACS [N = 1923]: 2.94% and 3.64%, HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.49-1.32; Pinteraction = 0.45), and for the cardiovascular endpoint (HBR: 7.87% and 5.75%, HR 1.39, 95%CI 0.97-1.99; non-HBR: 2.56% and 2.67%, HR 0.96, 95%CI 0.60-1.53; Pinteraction = 0.22; STEMI: 6.07% and 5.46%, HR 1.11, 95%CI 0.81-1.54; NSTE-ACS: 3.03% and 1.71%, HR 1.78, 95%CI 0.97-3.27; Pinteraction = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, the no-aspirin strategy compared to the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of HBR and ACS subtypes. The numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events was observed in patients with HBR and in patients with NSTE-ACS.

In-hospital outcomes after SAVR or TAVI in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

There were no data comparing the in-hospital outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Japan. Among consecutive patients with severe AS between April 2018 and December 2020 in the CURRENT AS Registry-2, we identified 1714 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (TAVI group: 1134 patients, and SAVR group: 580 patients). Patients in the TAVI group were much older (84.4 versus 73.6 years, P < 0.001) and more often had comorbidities than those in the SAVR group. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (0.6% versus 2.2%). After excluding patients with dialysis, in-hospital death rate was very low and comparable in the TAVI and SAVR groups (0.6% versus 0.8%). The rates of major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation during index hospitalization were higher after SAVR than after TAVI (72% versus 20%, and 26% versus 4.6%, respectively), while the rate of pacemaker implantation was higher after TAVI than after SAVR (8.1% versus 2.4%). Regarding the echocardiographic data at discharge, the prevalence of patient-prosthesis mismatch was lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group (moderate: 9.0% versus 26%, and severe: 2.6% versus 4.8%). In this real-world data in Japan, TAVI compared with SAVR was chosen in much older patients with more comorbidities with severe AS. In-hospital death rate was numerically lower in the TAVI group than in the SAVR group.

Preferred monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy following short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, no studies have compared P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin monotherapy following short-term DAPT. We aimed to compare available strategies for DAPT duration and post-DAPT antiplatelet monotherapy following PCI. METHODS: Seven DAPT strategies [ticagrelor or clopidogrel following 1-month DAPT, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT, aspirin following 3-6 months of DAPT (reference strategy), aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor following 6-18-months of DAPT, and DAPT for ≥18 months] were compared using a network meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was trial-defined major or minor bleeding. RESULTS: Our analysis identified 25 eligible RCTs, including 89,371 patients who underwent PCI. Overall, none of the strategies negatively affected the primary efficacy outcomes. For primary bleeding outcomes, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes (HR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.57-0.95). Clopidogrel following 1-month DAPT was also associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes (HR 0.54; 95 % CI 0.34-0.85), however, the strategy was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. Similar trends were observed among patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with aspirin monotherapy following short-term DAPT, ticagrelor following 3-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes without increasing any ischemic outcomes.

An Aspirin-Free Versus Dual Antiplatelet Strategy for Coronary Stenting: STOPDAPT-3 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding rates on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) within 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain high in clinical practice, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Aspirin-free strategy might result in lower bleeding early after PCI without increasing cardiovascular events, but its efficacy and safety have not yet been proven in randomized trials. METHODS: We randomly assigned 6002 patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk just before PCI either to prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) monotherapy or to DAPT with aspirin (81-100 mg/day) and prasugrel (3.75 mg/day) after loading of 20 mg of prasugrel in both groups. The coprimary end points were major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) for superiority and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) for noninferiority with a relative 50% margin. RESULTS: The full analysis set population consisted of 5966 patients (no-aspirin group, 2984 patients; DAPT group, 2982 patients; age, 71.6±11.7 years; men, 76.6%; acute coronary syndrome, 75.0%). Within 7 days before randomization, aspirin alone, aspirin with P2Y12 inhibitor, oral anticoagulants, and intravenous heparin infusion were given in 21.3%, 6.4%, 8.9%, and 24.5%, respectively. Adherence to the protocol-specified antiplatelet therapy was 88% in both groups at 1 month. At 1 month, the no-aspirin group was not superior to the DAPT group for the coprimary bleeding end point (4.47% and 4.71%; hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.75-1.20]; Psuperiority=0.66). The no-aspirin group was noninferior to the DAPT group for the coprimary cardiovascular end point (4.12% and 3.69%; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.87-1.45]; Pnoninferiority=0.01). There was no difference in net adverse clinical outcomes and each component of coprimary cardiovascular end point. There was an excess of any unplanned coronary revascularization (1.05% and 0.57%; hazard ratio, 1.83 [95%CI, 1.01-3.30]) and subacute definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.58% and 0.17%; hazard ratio, 3.40 [95% CI, 1.26-9.23]) in the no-aspirin group compared with the DAPT group. CONCLUSIONS: The aspirin-free strategy using low-dose prasugrel compared with the DAPT strategy failed to attest superiority for major bleeding within 1 month after PCI but was noninferior for cardiovascular events within 1 month after PCI. However, the aspirin-free strategy was associated with a signal suggesting an excess of coronary events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04609111.

Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether clopidogrel is better suited than aspirin as the long-term antiplatelet monotherapy following dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: This study compared clopidogrel monotherapy following 1 month of DAPT (clopidogrel group) with aspirin monotherapy following 12 months of DAPT (aspirin group) after PCI for 5 years. METHODS: STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy 2) is a multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan. Patients who underwent PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents were randomized in a 1-to-1 fashion either to clopidogrel or aspirin groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or definite stent thrombosis) or major bleeding (TIMI major or minor bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,005 study patients (age: 68.6 ± 10.7 years; women: 22.3%; acute coronary syndrome: 38.3%), 2,934 patients (97.6%) completed the 5-year follow-up (adherence to the study drugs at 395 days: 84.7% and 75.9%). The clopidogrel group compared with the aspirin group was noninferior but not superior for the primary endpoint (11.75% and 13.57%, respectively; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-1.05; Pnoninferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.13), whereas it was superior for the cardiovascular outcomes (8.61% and 11.05%, respectively; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; P = 0.03) and not superior for major bleeding (4.44% and 4.92%, respectively; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64-1.25; P = 0.51). By the 1-year landmark analysis, clopidogrel was numerically, but not significantly, superior to aspirin for cardiovascular events (6.79% and 8.68%, respectively; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.59-1.01; P = 0.06) without difference in major bleeding (3.99% and 3.32%, respectively; HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.84-1.81; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel might be an attractive alternative to aspirin with a borderline ischemic benefit beyond 1 year after PCI.

Single-Session Versus Staged Multivessel Optimal IVUS-Guided PCI in Patients With CCS or NSTE-ACS.

Background: There are no studies comparing single-session vs staged multivessel intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) or non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Objectives: The authors aimed to compare single-session vs staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI in patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS. Methods: The OPTIVUS-Complex PCI study multivessel cohort was a prospective multicenter single-arm trial enrolling 1,021 patients with CCS or NSTE-ACS undergoing multivessel PCI including left anterior descending coronary artery using IVUS aiming to meet the prespecified OPTIVUS criteria for optimal stent expansion. We compared single-session vs staged multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularization. Results: There were 246 patients (24.1%) undergoing single-session multivessel PCI, and 775 patients (75.9%) undergoing staged multivessel PCI. There was a wide variation in the prevalence of single-session multivessel PCI across the participating centers. The staged multivessel PCI group more often had complex coronary anatomy such as 3-vessel disease, chronic total occlusion, and calcified lesions requiring an atherectomy device compared with the single-session multivessel PCI group. The rates of PCI success, procedural complications, and meeting OPTIVUS criteria were not different between groups. The cumulative 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was not different between single-session and staged multivessel PCI groups (9.0% vs 10.8%, log-rank P = 0.42). After adjusting confounders, the effect of single-session multivessel PCI relative to staged multivessel PCI was not significant for the primary endpoint (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.58-1.55; P = 0.84). Conclusions: Single-session and staged multivessel IVUS-guided PCI had similar 1-year outcomes.

Biodegradable or durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ten-year outcomes of the randomised NEXT Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10 years. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES. METHODS: The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1 year after stent implantation up to 10 years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES. RESULTS: From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled a total of 3,241 patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417 patients (1,204 patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1 year and up to 10 years after stent implantation.

Dexmedetomidine versus haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated patients with hyperactive delirium during the night in a high dependency unit: study protocol for an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (DEX-HD trial).

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in critically ill patients. Haloperidol has long been used for the treatment of delirium. Dexmedetomidine has recently been used to treat delirium among intubated critically ill patients. However, the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for delirium in non-intubated critically ill patients remains unknown. We hypothesize that dexmedetomidine is superior to haloperidol for sedation of patients with hyperactive delirium, and would reduce the prevalence of delirium among non-intubated patients after administration. We will conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for the treatment of nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients in high dependency units (HDUs). METHODS: This is an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients at two HDUs of a tertiary hospital. We will recruit consecutive non-intubated patients who are admitted to the HDU from the emergency room, and allocate them in a 1:1 ratio to the dexmedetomidine or haloperidol group in advance. The allocated investigational drug will be administered only when participants develop hyperactive delirium (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS] score ≥1 and a positive score on the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU between 19:00 and 6:00 the next day) during the night at an HDU. Dexmedetomidine is administered continuously, while haloperidol is administered intermittently. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve the targeted sedation level (RASS score of between -3 and 0) 2h after the administration of the investigational drug. Secondary outcomes include the sedation level and prevalence of delirium on the day following the administration of the investigational drugs, and safety. We plan to enroll 100 participants who develop nocturnal hyperactive delirium and receive one of the two investigational drugs. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated critically ill patients with hyperactive delirium in HDUs. The results of this study may confirm whether dexmedetomidine could be another option to sedate patients with hyperactive delirium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCT1051220015, registered on 21 April 2022.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration After Multivessel Optimal Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of data evaluating contemporary real-world dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and Results: In the OPTIVUS-Complex PCI study multivessel cohort enrolling 982 patients undergoing multivessel PCI, including left anterior descending coronary artery using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), we conducted 90-day landmark analyses to compare shorter and longer DAPT. DAPT discontinuation was defined as withdrawal of P2Y12inhibitors or aspirin for at least 2 months. The prevalence of acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium were 14.2% and 52.5%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of DAPT discontinuation was 22.6% at 90 days, and 68.8% at 1 year. In the 90-day landmark analyses, there were no differences in the incidences of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularization (5.9% vs. 9.2%, log-rank P=0.12; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.08; P=0.09) and BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (1.4% vs. 1.9%, log-rank P=0.62) between the off- and on-DAPT groups at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of short DAPT duration was still low in this trial conducted after the release of the STOPDAPT-2 trial results. The 1-year incidence of cardiovascular events was not different between the shorter and longer DAPT groups, suggesting no apparent benefit of prolonged DAPT in reducing cardiovascular events even in patients who undergo multivessel PCI.

Target Lesion Revascularization After Intravascular Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Several stent expansion criteria derived from the intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) evaluation have been proposed to predict future clinical outcomes, but optimal stent expansion criteria as a guide during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still controversial. There are no studies evaluating the utility of stent expansion criteria along with the clinical and procedural factors in predicting target lesion revascularization (TLR) after contemporary IVUS-guided PCI. METHODS: OPTIVUS-Complex PCI study (Optimal Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) multivessel cohort was a prospective multicenter study enrolling 961 patients undergoing multivessel PCI including left anterior descending coronary artery using IVUS with an intention to meet the prespecified criteria for optimal stent expansion. We compared several stent expansion criteria (minimum stent area [MSA], MSA/distal or average reference lumen area, MSA/distal or average reference vessel area, OPTIVUS criteria, IVUS-XPL [Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance on Outcomes of Xience Prime Stents in Long Lesions] criteria, ULTIMATE [Intravascular Ultrasound Guided Drug Eluting Stents Implantation in "All-Comers" Coronary Lesions] criteria, and modified MUSIC [Multicenter Ultrasound Stenting in Coronaries Study] criteria) as well as clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics between lesions with and without TLR. RESULTS: Among 1957 lesions, the cumulative 1-year incidence of lesion-based TLR was 1.6% (30 lesions). Hemodialysis, treatment of proximal left anterior descending coronary artery lesions, calcified lesions, small proximal reference lumen area, and small MSA had univariate associations with TLR, while all of the stent expansion criteria except for MSA were not associated with TLR. The independent risk factors of TLR were calcified lesions (hazard ratio, 2.34 [95% CI, 1.03-5.32]; P=0.04) and small proximal reference lumen area (Tertile 1: hazard ratio, 7.01 [95% CI, 1.45-33.93]; P=0.02; and Tertile 2: hazard ratio, 5.40 [95% CI, 1.17-24.90]; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary IVUS-guided PCI practice, the 1-year incidence of TLR was very low. MSA, but not other stent expansion criteria, had univariate association with TLR. Independent risk factors of TLR were calcified lesions and small proximal reference lumen area, although the findings should be interpreted with caution due to small number of TLR events, limited lesion complexity, and short duration of follow-up.

Differential response to isometric handgrip depending on the heart failure condition in patients with functional mitral regurgitation: a case report.

Background: Functional mitral regurgitation (MR) changes dynamically depending on the loading conditions and can cause acute heart failure (HF). Isometric handgrip is a simple stress test and can be performed during early phase of acute HF for the evaluation of MR. Case summary: A 70-year-old woman with a prior myocardial infarction four months before, and with history of recurrent HF admission with functional MR, who received optimal HF medications, was hospitalized for acute HF. On the following day of the admission, isometric handgrip stress echocardiography was performed to evaluate functional MR. During the handgrip, MR deteriorated from moderate to severe and the tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient increased from 45 to 60 mmHg. After HF stabilization 2 weeks after admission, repeat handgrip stress echocardiography showed that the degree of MR did not significantly change being moderate and the tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient was only mildly elevated from 25 to 30 mmHg. She underwent transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral repair, and thereafter she has not experienced the rehospitalization for acute HF. Discussion: Exercise stress test is recommended for the evaluation of functional MR in HF patients; however, exercise tests are difficult to perform during the early phase of acute HF. In this regard, handgrip test is an option to investigate the exacerbating impact of functional MR during early-phase acute HF. This case indicated that response to isometric handgrip can vary depending on HF condition, highlighting the importance of taking into account the timing of the handgrip procedure in patients with functional MR and HF.

Clopidogrel Monotherapy After 1-Month DAPT in Patients With High Bleeding Risk or Complex PCI.

Background: High bleeding risk (HBR) and complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are major determinants for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of HBR and complex PCI on short vs standard DAPT. Methods: Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of Academic Research Consortium-defined HBR and complex PCI in the STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Verulam's-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent-2) Total Cohort, which randomly compared clopidogrel monotherapy after 1-month DAPT with 12-month DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel after PCI. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) or bleeding (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] major or minor) endpoints at 1 year. Results: Regardless of HBR (n = 1,893 [31.6%]) and complex PCI (n = 999 [16.7%]), the risk of 1-month DAPT relative to 12-month DAPT was not significant for the primary endpoint (HBR, 5.01% vs 5.14%; non-HBR, 1.90% vs 2.02%; P interaction = 0.95) (complex PCI, 3.15% vs 4.07%; noncomplex PCI, 2.78% vs 2.82%; P interaction = 0.48) and for the cardiovascular endpoint (HBR, 4.35% vs 3.52%; and non-HBR, 1.56% vs 1.22%; P interaction = 0.90) (complex PCI, 2.53% vs 2.52%; noncomplex PCI, 2.38% vs 1.86%; P interaction = 0.53), while it was lower for the bleeding endpoint (HBR, 0.66% vs 2.27%; non-HBR, 0.43% vs 0.85%; P interaction = 0.36) (complex PCI, 0.63% vs 1.75%; noncomplex PCI, 0.48% vs 1.22%; P interaction = 0.90). The absolute difference in the bleeding between 1- and 12-month DAPT was numerically greater in patients with HBR than in those without HBR (-1.61% vs -0.42%). Conclusions: The effects of 1-month DAPT relative to 12-month DAPT were consistent regardless of HBR and complex PCI. The absolute benefit of 1-month DAPT over 12-month DAPT in reducing major bleeding was numerically greater in patients with HBR than in those without HBR. Complex PCI might not be an appropriate determinant for DAPT durations after PCI. (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent-2 [STOPDAPT-2], NCT02619760; Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent-2 for the Patients With ACS [STOPDAPT-2 ACS], NCT03462498).

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity. METHODS: We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS: Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; Pinteraction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; Pinteraction = 0.920). CONCLUSIONS: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853).