Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy.
We ...randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later.
In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups.
This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.).
Summary Background Optimum duration of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) after coronary stenting remains uncertain, with an unknown efficacy to safety ratio of extended treatment leading to ...discrepancies between international guidelines and clinical practice. We assessed whether DAPT continuation beyond 1 year after coronary stenting is beneficial. Methods This analysis was a planned extension of the previously published ARCTIC-Monitoring trial, in which we randomly allocated 2440 patients to a strategy of platelet function testing with antiplatelet treatment adjustment or a conventional strategy after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES). We recruited patients (aged 18 years or older) scheduled for planned DES implantation at 38 centres in France. After 1 year of follow-up, patients without contraindication to interruption of DAPT were eligible for a second randomisation to this second phase of the study (ARCTIC-Interruption). Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by centre), we allocated patients to a strategy of interruption of DAPT where the thienopyridine was interrupted and single aspirin antiplatelet treatment was maintained (interruption group) or a strategy of DAPT continuation for 6–18 months (continuation group). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00827411. Findings Between Jan 4, 2011, and March 3, 2012, 1259 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment in ARCTIC-Interruption: 624 to the interruption group and 635 to the continuation group. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 15–18), the primary endpoint occurred in 27 (4%) patients in the interruption group and 24 (4%) patients in the continuation group (hazard ratio HR 1·17 95% CI 0·68–2·03; p=0·58). STEEPLE major bleeding events occurred more often in the continuation group (seven 1% patients) compared with the interruption group (one <0·5% patient; HR 0·15 0·02–1·20; p=0·073). Major or minor bleedings were also more common in the continuation group compared with the interruption group (12 2% patients vs three 1% patients; HR 0·26 0·07–0·91; p=0·04). Interpretation Our finding suggests no apparent benefit but instead harm with extension of DAPT beyond 1 year after stenting with DES when no event has occurred within the first year after stenting. No conclusion can be drawn for high-risk patients who could not be randomised. The consistency between findings from all trials of such interruption suggests the need for a reappraisal of guidelines for DAPT after coronary stenting towards shorter duration of treatment. Funding Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks (ACTION Study Group), Fondation de France, Sanofi-Aventis, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Fondation SGAM.
We determined eligibility for icosapent ethyl (EPA) treatment in coronary artery disease (CAD).
Consecutive patients with type 2 diabetes and CAD were prospectively included from 03/2019 to 12/2020.
...574 patients were included; mean age 71 years, 81% males, with a high prevalence of other risk factors (81% hypertension). Mean lipid-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 85 mg/dl, mean glycated hemoglobin HbA
7.1%, mean triglycerides 148 mg/dl; 82% received statins. Based on National Lipid Association criteria, 31% would be eligible for EPA.
In this contemporary survey in consecutive, unselected CAD patients in daily practice, almost a third would be potentially eligible for EPA.
Optimal risk assessment for primary prevention remains highly challenging. Recent registries have highlighted major discrepancies between guidelines and daily practice. Although guidelines have ...improved over time and provide updated risk scores, they still fail to identify a significant proportion of at-risk individuals, who then miss out on effective prevention measures until their initial ischemic events. Cardiovascular imaging is progressively assuming an increasingly pivotal role, playing a crucial part in enhancing the meticulous categorization of individuals according to their risk profiles, thus enabling the customization of precise therapeutic strategies for patients with increased cardiovascular risks. For the most part, the current approach to patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is homogeneous. However, data from registries (e.g., REACH, CORONOR) and randomized clinical trials (e.g., COMPASS, FOURIER, and ODYSSEY outcomes) highlight heterogeneity in the risks of recurrent ischemic events, which are especially higher in patients with poly-vascular disease and/or multivessel coronary disease. This indicates the need for a more individualized strategy and further research to improve definitions of individual residual risk, with a view of intensifying treatments in the subgroups with very high residual risk. In this narrative review, we discuss advances in cardiovascular imaging, its current place in the guidelines, the gaps in evidence, and perspectives for primary and secondary prevention to improve risk assessment and therapeutic strategies using cardiovascular imaging.
Objectives The Life’s Simple 7 score (LS7) promotes cardiovascular health (CVH). Despite this, some with optimal LS7 develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), while others with poor CVH do not, termed ...the “CVH paradox.” This paper explores pathways explaining this paradox. Methods We examined methodological aspects: 1) misclassification bias in self-reported lifestyle factors (smoking, physical activity, diet); 2) cumulative exposure to risk factors over a lifetime, impacting the CVH paradox. Punctual risk factor assessments are suboptimal for predicting outcomes. We proposed personalized prevention using “novel” elements to refine CVH assessment: 1) subclinical vascular disease markers, 2) metabolic biomarkers in blood and urine, 3) emerging risk factors, 4) polygenic risk scores (PRS), 5) epigenetics, and 6) the exposome. Results Addressing the CVH paradox requires a multifaceted approach, reducing misclassification bias, considering cumulative risk exposure, and incorporating novel personalized prevention elements. Conclusion A holistic, individualized approach to CVH assessment and CVD prevention can better reduce cardiovascular outcomes and improve population health. Collaboration among researchers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and communities is essential for effective implementation and realization of these strategies.
PDF
