Background-It is not known whether further suppression of platelet function can be achieved with clopidogrel beyond that provided by currently recommended loading and maintenance doses. We performed a comparative assessment of the antiplatelet effects of a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel given to patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy. Methods and Results-Those eligible for this prospective study were aspirin-treated patients with suspected or documented coronary artery disease admitted to hospital for coronary angiography. Two series of 20 consecutive patients each were assessed in this study. The first series included patients who had never received clopidogrel (first-use group); the second series included patients on chronic therapy with a daily dose of 75 mg clopidogrel for Ն1 month (chronic therapy group). Blood samples were drawn before and 6 hours after oral administration of 600 mg clopidogrel for aggregometry and flow cytometry studies. In the first-use group, loading with 600 mg clopidogrel inhibited ADP 5 mol/L-induced platelet aggregation from 90Ϯ9% to 51Ϯ19% (PϽ0.001). In the chronic therapy group, loading with 600 mg clopidogrel yielded further inhibition of ADP 5 mol/L-induced platelet aggregation in addition to that achieved by the maintenance dose of 75 mg/d, from 52Ϯ14% to 33Ϯ12% (PϽ0.001). In both groups, 600 mg clopidogrel loading significantly inhibited ADP-induced expression of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and P-selectin receptors. Conclusions-Further platelet inhibition can be achieved with clopidogrel in addition to that provided by currently recommended loading and maintenance doses. Higher doses may be warranted after assessment of their clinical efficacy and safety.

The antiplatelet effect of a high, 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel is not diminished in patients receiving atorvastatin and simvastatin for at least 4 weeks prior to coronary stenting.

Effective excipients are necessary to accomplish successful balloon facilitated paclitaxel delivery, which is associated with delayed vascular healing as a sign of successful drug transfer. The potential of DEBs to diminish restenosis following angioplasty may be insufficient in the absence of additional stents.

Aims The antiplatelet treatment strategy providing optimal balance between thrombotic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. We prospectively compared the efficacy of ticagrelor and aspirin after CABG. Methods and results We randomly assigned in double-blind fashion patients scheduled for CABG to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or 100 mg aspirin (1:1) once daily. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and stroke 12 months after CABG. The main safety endpoint was based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, defined as BARC ≥4 for periprocedural and hospital stay-related bleedings and BARC ≥3 for post-discharge bleedings. The study was prematurely halted after recruitment of 1859 out of 3850 planned patients. Twelve months after CABG, the primary endpoint occurred in 86 out of 931 patients (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and in 73 out of 928 patients (8.2%) in the aspirin group [hazard ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87–1.62; P = 0.28]. All-cause mortality (ticagrelor 2.5% vs. aspirin 2.6%, hazard ratio 0.96, CI 0.53–1.72; P = 0.89), cardiovascular death (ticagrelor 1.2% vs. aspirin 1.4%, hazard ratio 0.85, CI 0.38–1.89; P = 0.68), MI (ticagrelor 2.1% vs. aspirin 3.4%, hazard ratio 0.63, CI 0.36–1.12, P = 0.12), and stroke (ticagrelor 3.1% vs. 2.6%, hazard ratio 1.21, CI 0.70–2.08; P = 0.49), showed no significant difference between the ticagrelor and aspirin group. The main safety endpoint was also not significantly different (ticagrelor 3.7% vs. aspirin 3.2%, hazard ratio 1.17, CI 0.71–1.92; P = 0.53). Conclusion In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after CABG no significant differences in major cardiovascular events or major bleeding could be demonstrated. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01755520.

No abstract

Background Data reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry. Methods Patients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during long-term follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death). Results After matching the patients for age (±5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (±1) and HASBLED score (±1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During long-term follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively). Conclusion Amulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On long-term follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Objectives To compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry. Background Data reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. Methods Patients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during 2-year-follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death). Results After matching the patients for age (± 5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (± 1) and HASBLED score (± 1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During 2-year follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively). Conclusion Amulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On 2-year follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Current evidence regarding the effect of intravenous morphine administration on reperfusion injury and/or cardioprotection in patients with myocardial infarction is conflicting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of morphine administration, on infarct size and reperfusion injury assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in a large multicenter ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. In total, 734 STEMI patients reperfused by primary percutaneous coronary intervention <12 h after symptom onset underwent CMR imaging at eight centers for assessment of myocardial damage. Intravenous morphine administration was recorded in all patients. CMR was completed within one week after infarction using a standardized protocol. The clinical endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 12 months after infarction. Intravenous morphine was administered in 61.8% (n = 454) of all patients. There were no differences in infarct size (17%LV, interquartile range [IQR] 8–25%LV versus 16%LV, IQR 8–26%LV, p = 0.67) and microvascular obstruction (p = 0.92) in patients with versus without morphine administration. In the subgroup of patients with early reperfusion within 120 min and reduced flow of the infarcted vessel (TIMI-flow ≤2 before PCI) morphine administration resulted in significantly smaller infarcts (12%LV, IQR 12–19 versus 19%LV, IQR 10–29, p = 0.035) and reduced microvascular obstruction (p = 0.003). Morphine administration had no effect on hard clinical endpoints (log-rank test p = 0.74) and was not an independent predictor of clinical outcome in Cox regression analysis. In our large multicenter CMR study, morphine administration did not have a negative effect on myocardial damage or clinical prognosis in acute reperfused STEMI. In patients, presenting early ( ≤120 min) morphine may have a cardioprotective effect as reflected by smaller infarcts; but this finding has to be assessed in further well-designed clinical studies