No abstract

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have accelerated atherosclerosis, which is the main underlying factor contributing to the high risk of atherothrombotic events in these patients. Atherothrombotic complications are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with DM. Among factors contributing to the prothrombotic condition which characterise patients with DM, platelet hyperreactivity plays a pivotal role. Platelets of DM patients are characterised by dysregulation of several signalling pathways leading to intensified adhesion, activation and aggregation. Multiple mechanisms are involved in platelet dysfunction of patients with DM, which can be categorised as follows: a) hyperglycaemia, b) insulin deficiency and resistance, c) associated metabolic conditions, and d) other cellular abnormalities.The present manuscript aims to provide an overview on the current status of knowledge on platelet abnormalities that characterise patients with DM.

for the DIABETES Investigators* Background-Outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in diabetic patients are shadowed by the increased rate of recurrence compared with nondiabetic patients. Methods and Results-We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to demonstrate the efficacy of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with standard stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries. The primary end point of the trial was in-segment late lumen loss as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography at 9-month follow-up. The trial was stratified by diabetes treatment status. One hundred sixty patients were randomized to sirolimus-eluting stents (80 patients; 111 lesions) or standard stent implantation (80 patients; 110 lesions). On average, reference diameter was 2.34Ϯ0.6 mm, lesion length was 15.0Ϯ8 mm, and 13.1% of lesions were chronic total occlusions. In-segment late lumen loss was reduced from 0.47Ϯ0.5 mm for standard stents to 0.06Ϯ0.4 mm for sirolimus stents (PϽ0.001). Target-lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiac event rates were significantly lower in the sirolimus group (31.3% versus 7.3% and 36.3% versus 11.3%, respectively; both PϽ0.001). Non-insulinand insulin-requiring patients demonstrated similar reductions in angiographic and clinical parameters of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. During the 9-month follow-up, stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients after standard stent implantation. Conversely, this phenomenon was not seen in the sirolimus stent group. Conclusions-This

Background: The use of poly- l -lactide acid-based bioresorbable scaffolds is limited in daily clinical practice because of safety concerns and lack of physiological benefit. Magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffold (MgBRS) presents a short resorption period (<1 year) and have the potential of being thromboresistant and exhibiting early restoration of vasomotor function. To date, however, no randomized clinical trial has investigated the performance of MgBRS. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the in-stent/scaffold vasomotion between MgBRS and permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods: This investigator-driven, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial randomized ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients 1:1 to SES or MgBRS at 11 academic centers. The primary end point was the rate of increase (≥3%) after nitroglycerin in mean lumen diameter of the in-stent/scaffold segment at 12 months with superiority of MgBRS over SES in the as-treated population. The main secondary end points included angiographic parameters of restenosis, device-oriented composite end point, their individual components, and device thrombosis rate. Besides, endothelial-dependent vasomotor response to acetylcholine (ie, endothelial function) was also assessed in a subgroup of patients (n=69). Results: Between June 2017 and June 2018, 150 ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients were randomized (MgBRS, n=74; SES, n=76). At 1 year, the primary end point was significantly higher in the MgBRS arm (56.5% versus 33.8%; P =0.010). Conversely, late lumen loss was significantly lower in the SES group (in-segment: 0.39±0.49mm versus 0.02±0.27mm, P <0.001; in-device: 0.61±0.55mm versus 0.06±0.21mm; P <0.001). The device-oriented composite end point was higher in the MgBRS arm driven by an increase in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate (12[16.2%] versus 4[5.2%], P =0.030). Definite thrombosis rate was similar between groups (1[1.4%] in the MgBRS arm versus 2[2.6%] in the SES group; P =1.0). Endothelial function assessment at device segment evidenced a more pronounced vasoconstrictive response to maximal dose of acetylcholine in the MgBRS arm (−8.3±3.5% versus −2.4±1.3% in the SES group, P =0.003). Conclusions: When compared to SES, MgBRS demonstrated a higher capacity of vasomotor response to pharmacological agents (either endothelium-independent or endothelium-dependent) at 1 year. However, MgBRS was associated with a lower angiographic efficacy, a higher rate of target lesion revascularization, without thrombotic safety concerns. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03234348.

Introduction and objectives The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. Results Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Conclusions The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.

No abstract

No abstract

AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).