AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

Background-The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy and the risk-benefit ratio for long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting remain poorly defined. We evaluated the impact of up to 6 versus 24 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy in a broad all-comers patient population receiving a balanced proportion of Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents. Methods and Results-We randomly assigned 2013 patients to receive bare-metal, zotarolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. At 30 days, patients in each stent group were randomly allocated to receive up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in addition to aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of death of any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 10.1% with 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with 10.0% with 6-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74 -1.29; Pϭ0.91). The individual risks of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or stent thrombosis did not differ between the study groups; however, there was a consistently greater risk of hemorrhage in the 24-month clopidogrel group according to all prespecified bleeding definitions, including the recently proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. Conclusions-A regimen of 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in patients who had received a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a 6-month clopidogrel regimen in reducing the composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Aims  To evaluate the impact of an experimental strategy [23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)] vs. a reference regimen (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results In the present post hoc analysis of the Global Leaders trial, the primary endpoint [composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI)] at 2 years was assessed in patients with complex PCI, which includes at least one of the following characteristics: multivessel PCI, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI with ≥2 stents, or total stent length >60 mm. In addition, patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) (composite of all-cause death, any stroke, any MI, or any revascularization) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) [composite of POCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 3 or 5 bleeding] were explored. Among 15 450 patients included in this analysis, 4570 who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischaemic and bleeding events. In patients with complex PCI, the experimental strategy significantly reduced risks of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48–0.85] and POCE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.93), but not in those with non-complex PCI (Pinteraction = 0.015 and 0.017, respectively). The risk of BARC Type 3 or 5 bleeding was comparable (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.67–1.40), resulting in a significant risk reduction in NACE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.92; Pinteraction = 0.011). Conclusion  Ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month DAPT could provide a net clinical benefit for patients with complex PCI. However, in view of the overall neutral results of the trial, these findings of a post hoc analysis should be considered as hypothesis generating.

No abstract

Background. The study of coronary microcirculation has gained increasing consideration and importance in cath lab. Despite the increase of evidence, its use still remains very limited. QFR is a novel angio-based approach for the evaluation of coronary stenosis. The aim of our study was to use the QFR assessment in stable patients to recreate the IMR formula and to correlate the result of the two techniques. Methods. From June 1, 2019, to February 29, 2019, 200 patients with CCS and indication of coronary artery angiography and referred to the cath lab of the University Hospital of Ferrara (Italy) were enrolled. After baseline coronary angiogram, quantitative flow ratio, fractional flow reserve, and index of microcirculatory resistance evaluation were performed. Results. Pearson correlation (r) between angio-based index of microcirculatory resistance (A-IMR) and IMR 0.32 with R2 = 0.098, P = 0.03 : McNemar test showed a difference between the two tests of 6.82% with 95% CI from –12.05% to 22.89%, which is not significant ( P = 0.60 ). Bland and Altman plot showed a mean difference of 23.3 (from −26.5 to 73.1). Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were 70%, 83.3%, 75%, and 70% for A-IMR value >44.2. The area under the ROC curve for A-IMR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.61–0.88, P = 0.0003 ). Conclusion. We have validated for the first time the formula of the A-IMR, a tool for the calculation of microvascular resistance which does not require the use of pressure guides and the induction of hyperemia.