Impact of anticoagulation regimen prior to revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: The ACUITY trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of antithrombotic regimens during the medical phase of treatment among 13,819 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) treated with an early invasive strategy in the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy (ACUITY) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Endpoints included composite major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE; MACE or major bleeding). The median (interquartile range) duration of antithrombin use in the medical only treatment phase was 6.5 (1.8-22.5) hours. MACE, major bleeding, and NACE during the medical only phase occurred in 63 (0.5%), 117 (0.9%), and 178 (1.3%) patients, respectively. MACE rates in the medical-treatment-only phase were not significantly different between the four randomized medical regimens used (heparin alone, bivalirudin alone, heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor [GPI], and bivalirudin plus GPI) (Ptrend = 0.65). The lowest rates of major bleeding and NACE during the medical treatment phase occurred in patients treated with bivalirudin alone (Ptrend = 0.0006 and Ptrend = 0.0004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing an early invasive strategy, treatment with bivalirudin alone significantly reduced major bleeding and improved net clinical outcomes during the upstream medical management phase with comparable rates of MACE. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Drug-eluting stents for off-label indications in real clinical world: evidence based or 'intuition' based clinical practice?

BACKGROUND: The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is an example of the disparity between recommendations given by regulatory agencies and the real clinical world. Such disparity might lead cardiologists to adopt different routines in the use of DES. We aimed to assess variability of off-label DES use between hospitals and to what extent it can be explained by differences in patient or hospital characteristics. METHODS: Characteristics of consecutive patients receiving DES in 29 hospitals were recorded. Individual and hospital determinants of receiving DES for off-label indications were assessed by multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: 1903 patients were recruited and 1188 (62.4%) received DES for off-label indications. Individual variables associated with off-label use were age (OR 1.01 (1-1.02)), previous percutaneous (OR 2.24 (1.68-2.97)) or surgical (2.41 (1.52-3.84)) revascularization, repeated procedure at the same admission (OR 4.66 (2.7-8.05)), receiving two (OR 4.17 (3.24-5.37)) or three or more DES (OR 14.12 (9.08-21.96)) vs one. Adjusting for individual variables, the Odds of receiving DES for off-label indication was higher in public funding hospitals with surgery availability vs private hospitals: 1.49 (0.86-2.6), and in public hospitals without surgery vs public with surgery availability: OR 1.76 (1.02-3.03). Interhospital variability reminded significant after adjustment for individual and contextual variables. CONCLUSION: Off-label DES use is highly variable between centers. Although this variability is partially determined by hospital type of funding and cardiac surgery availability, the substantial interhospital variability after multilevel adjustment suggests heterogeneity in the process of care.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease.

Currently approved antiplatelet treatment strategies have proved successful for reducing cardiovascular adverse events in patients with CAD. However, despite the use of recommended antiplatelet treatment strategies, the presence of DM has been consistently associated with a negative impact on outcomes and a high rate of adverse cardiovascular events continue to occur in patients with DM. The elevated prevalence of low response to standard oral antiplatelet agents contribute to these impaired outcomes. Thus, the search for more potent antiplatelet treatment strategies is warranted in high-risk patients, such as those with DM. The present manuscript provides an overview on the current status of knowledge on currently available antiplatelet agents, focusing on the benefits and limitations of these therapies in DM patients, and evaluating the potential role of new antithrombotic agents and treatment strategies currently under development to overcome these limitations.

Oral antiplatelet therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndromes.

Despite the use of recommended antiplatelet treatment strategies, the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has been consistently associated with a higher risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients suffering an acute coronary syndrome. The high prevalence of DM patients presenting with low responsiveness to standard oral antiplatelet treatment regimens contributes to these impaired outcomes. This article provides an overview of the currently available oral antiplatelet agents, focusing on limitations of these therapies in DM patients, and evaluates new antithrombotic treatment strategies that may help overcome these limitations.

Use of Impella Recover LP 2.5 in elective high risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

We describe a single-center experience in using the Impella Recover LP 2.5 in the setting of high-risk elective percutaneous coronary interventions. This device is placed percutaneously to support cardiac output and has a better profile than other left ventricular assist devices. Our study shows that the use of the Impella Recover LP 2.5 device is feasible, has an overall favorable safety profile, and may help prevent periprocedural and short-term complications derived from high-risk procedures.

Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes recommend an early invasive approach with concomitant antithrombotic therapy, including aspirin, clopidogrel, unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. We evaluated the role of thrombin-specific anticoagulation with bivalirudin in such patients. METHODS: We assigned 13,819 patients with acute coronary syndromes to one of three antithrombotic regimens: unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin alone. The primary end points were a composite ischemia end point (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia), major bleeding, and the net clinical outcome, defined as the combination of composite ischemia or major bleeding. RESULTS: Bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with noninferior 30-day rates of the composite ischemia end point (7.7% and 7.3%, respectively), major bleeding (5.3% and 5.7%), and the net clinical outcome end point (11.8% and 11.7%). Bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with a noninferior rate of the composite ischemia end point (7.8% and 7.3%, respectively; P=0.32; relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.24) and significantly reduced rates of major bleeding (3.0% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001; relative risk, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65) and the net clinical outcome end point (10.1% vs. 11.7%; P=0.02; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes who were undergoing invasive treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin was associated with rates of ischemia and bleeding that were similar to those with heparin. Bivalirudin alone was associated with similar rates of ischemia and significantly lower rates of bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093158 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).