Management of aspirin intolerance in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The role of mono-antiplatelet therapy: a retrospective, multicenter, study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with aspirin intolerance undergoing stent implantation represents a challenge for physicians. The aim of this study was to assess the overall number of patients discharged with mono antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The most frequent aspirin intolerance symptoms in this population and the overall incidence of patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCE). METHODS: From January 2006 to June 2016 all patients discharged with mono-antiplatelet therapy because of aspirin intolerance/hypersensitivity/allergy and treated by means of PCI were included. Data about percutaneous treatments and aspirin intolerance were collected. POCE were evaluated at a twelve-month clinical follow-up comparing safety and efficacy of clopidogrel monotherapy versus new P2Y12 inhibitors. RESULTS: We collected 70 patients, that is 0.3% of the total amount of PCI in the considered period, 25 (35%) of them were women and the remaining 45 (65%) were men. An acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was the clinical presentation in 47 (67.1%) patients, with NSTEMI in 19 (27.1%) of them. Forty-six patients (65.7%) were treated with clopidogrel and 24 (34.3%) with new P2Y12 inhibitors. At one-year follow-up, 18 (25.7%) patients suffered a new clinically relevant adverse event, 5 (7.1%) died, 3 (4.3%) required a target vessel revascularization and 10 (14.3%) patients a target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study evaluated patients with ACS or stable coronary artery disease undergoing PCI and treated with mono-antiplatelet therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors due to aspirin intolerance shows a 25% incidence of POCE at one year. Further studies with adequate sample size are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mono antiplatelet therapy in this clinical scenario.

Primary angioplasty in ST-elevation myocardial infarction due to unprotected left-main coronary disease in a high-volume catheterization center without on-site surgery facilities: immediate and medium-term outcome: the STEMI-Placet Registry.

BACKGROUND: Very few data have been published for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) caused by unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) and very little is known about the results in this subgroup of patients in a hospital with high-volume catheterization laboratories (cath labs) without on-site cardiosurgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2004 to December 2009, a total of 38 patients with evolving STEMI and ULMCA as the culprit lesion treated with primary angioplasty were enrolled in our registry. Despite dramatic clinical presentation (73.7% cardiogenic shock, 15.8% cardiac arrest and resuscitation maneuvers, 81.6% additive EuroSCORE >13, and 89.5% distal bifurcation involvement), angiographic success was obtained in 84.2% and final TIMI 3 flow was achieved in 34 (89.5%), while target lesion failure occurred in 47.4% (mostly [42.1%] during the in-hospital phase). Most of the patients discharged from hospital had no events at follow-up (47.4%), and notably no target lesion revascularization was required during the follow-up phase. CONCLUSIONS: Primary angioplasty in patients presenting with ULMCA as the culprit lesion in a STEMI setting appears to be technically feasible and a good alternative to surgical revascularization. Mortality in this group of patients tends to be high, but lower than mortality of untreated patients; the majority of events are concentrated during the in-hospital phase. Procedural delay related to activation of operator's staff in off-duty hours doesn't correlate with a worse prognosis.

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: predictors of long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), associated with a high mortality. A significant improvement in survival has been reported with immediate coronary revascularization. However, there is no clear evidence of such an improvement amongst older patients. The aim of our work was to evaluate in-hospital and long-term outcomes in the group of elderly AMI patients with CS (≥75 years old). METHODS: We collected data of 157 consecutive AMI patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and compared clinical and procedural characteristics and in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients <75 years and patients ≥75 years old. RESULTS: There were 58 patients (36.9%) with age ≥75 years and 99 patients (63.1%) with age <75 years. Patients were followed up for an average period of 34 months (range 5-69). In-hospital and long-term mortality was significantly higher in the older group (55 vs. 25%, P < 0.0001; and 62.1 vs. 37.3%, P = 0.005, respectively). Multivariate predictors of in-hospital mortality were age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.81, 95% CI 1.006-3.27, P = 0.04) and PCI failure (hazard ratio 2.67, 95% CI 1.34-5.307, P = 0.005), whereas, the only multivariate predictor of long-term mortality was PCI failure (hazard ratio 2.88, 95% CI 1.52-5.46, P = 0.001). Age ≥75 years showed only a trend toward statistical significance (hazard ratio 1.62, 95% CI 0.96-2.76, P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly AMI patients with CS, PCI can be performed with an acceptable risk that seems lower than that reported in most previous studies.