De-escalation strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a step towards precision medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is a cornerstone in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Current international guidelines recommend the use of 12 months of DAPT with newer P2Y12 inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) as first-line therapy in this setting. However, intense and prolonged DAPT regimens are associated with an increased risk of bleeding, with relevant prognostic implications. Recently, a strategy of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibitors has been proposed as an alternative to conventional DAPT to mitigate the risk of bleeding while preserving ischemic protection after ACS. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we summarize the available evidence on guided and unguided strategies for P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. EXPERT OPINION: Among patients with ACS, guided and unguided de-escalation strategies are safe and effective for secondary cardiovascular prevention. Although the implementation of genetic and platelet function tests is of interest for treatment personalization, the routine use of guided de-escalation strategies seems impractical. In this context, unguided de-escalation approaches appear more attractive, convenient, and suitable for contemporary practice.

Evaluation of Patients' Perception of Safety in an Italian Hospital Using the PMOS-30 Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: In our study, an Italian version of the PMOS-30 questionnaire was used to evaluate its feasibility and to improve health care quality in an Italian hospital. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 435 inpatients at a hospital in the Campania Region of Southern Italy using the PMOS-30 questionnaire and two other questions to assess patient feedback about the overall perception of safety. RESULTS: The item "I was always treated with dignity and respect" showed the greatest percentage of agreement (agree/strongly agree = 89.2%; mean = 4.24). The least agreement was associated with the four "Staff Roles and Responsibilities" items (agree/strongly agree ranged from 31.5 to 40.0%; weighted mean = 2.84). All other 25 items had over 55.0% agreement, with 19 items over 70%. Moreover, 94.5% of the patients considered the safety of the ward sufficient/good/very good, and 92.8% did not notice situations that could cause harm to patients. CONCLUSION: Patient perception of safety was found to be satisfactory. The results were presented to the hospital decision makers for suggesting appropriate interventions. Our experience showed that the use of the PMOS-30 questionnaire may improve safety and health care quality in hospital settings through patient feedback.