Gowda, Smitha Narayana

Background Optimal duration and choice of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain controversial. Methods and Results Digital databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) were queried to select all randomized controlled trials on a post–percutaneous coronary intervention population with acute coronary syndrome. Dual‐antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months was compared with 4 major strategies: high‐potency, high‐ to low‐potency, low‐dose, and short‐duration DAPT. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet strategies. This study was the second updated manuscript under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration (CRD42021286552). Thirty‐two randomized controlled trials comprising 103 459 (51 750 experimental, 51 709 control) patients were included. Compared with DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months, high‐ to low‐potency DAPT (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52–0.92]) and aspirin+prasugrel containing DAPT for 12 months (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72–0.98]) had a significantly lower, whereas DAPT for 1 month followed by clopidogrel only (RR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.06–2.39]) had a higher, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year (median follow‐up). Prasugrel (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.09–1.66]) and ticagrelor (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.17–1.62]) containing DAPT for 12 months had significantly higher rates, whereas high‐ to low‐potency DAPT (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63–1.15]) had no significant risk of major bleeding. Conclusions Aspirin and ticagrelor for 3 months, followed by aspirin and clopidogrel for the remaining duration, can be considered the optimal strategy for treating post–percutaneous coronary intervention patients with acute coronary syndrome because of a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Introduction: Body fat (BF) content better predicts adiposity-related cardiovascular risk than the body mass index (BMI). Accurate and accepted methods to assess BF are complex, expensive, and accessible only in clinical settings. Multi-sensor 3D body volume (3D-BV) measurement technology has been shown to accurately estimate BF. We assessed the hypothesis that 3D models generated from biplane imaging (i.e., front and side facing photographs) using mobile devices (App), could be used to predict body volume measurements and derive BF. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 196 subjects, who underwent 3D-BV (gold standard for body volume) within 24 hours, dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (iDEXA) (gold standard for BF) and photographs taken with an Ipad® App at a predefined distance and pose. These photos were post-processed with a computer-assisted algorithm to estimate body length, girth, and volume. These were used to calculate body density (BD) using the bicompartmental principles of body composition (BD=Body Mass/Volume) and derive BF% using the Siri equation [(4.95/BD-4.50) X 100]. Correlation indexes and residual plots were created to compare 3D-BV and iDEXA with the App. Mean differences were compared using a paired t-test. Results: Mean ±SD age was 31.9±9.15 years, 53% were women, weight 72.8±14.1 kg, BMI was 25.5±4.5 kg/m 2 .The App volume correlated with 3D-BV (R 2 =0.95,95%CI 0.90,0.95, p<.0001, Figure 1-A ) ; average difference between App volume vs 3D-BV volume was -1.2 Liters, 95%CI,0.03, 2.42, p=0.06, ( Figure 1-B ). App BF% correlated with iDEXA BF% (R 2 =0.92, 95%CI 0.90,0.94, p<.0001, Figure 1-C ) ; while average difference between App BF% vs iDEXA BF% was -0.13 %, 95%CI -0.6,0.4, p=0.6, ( Figure 1-D ). Conclusion: BF can be estimated using volume measurements obtained by biplane imaging from mobile devices and could serve as a home-based, portable, scalable, cost-effective, and convenient measure to assess BF and track changes in body composition over time.

Background The management of patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis is challenging. Evidence on early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus symptom-driven intervention in these patients is unknown. Methods Electronic databases were searched, articles comparing early-AVR with conservative management for severe aortic stenosis were identified. Pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) was computed using a random-effect model to determine all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Results A total of eight studies consisting of 2201 patients were identified. Early-AVR was associated with lower all-cause mortality [OR 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–0.45, P ≤ 0.00001] and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.70, P = 0.01) compared with conservative management. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was 4 and 9, respectively. The odds of all-cause mortality in a selected patient population undergoing surgical AVR (SAVR) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09–0.29, P ≤ 0.00001) and SAVR or transcatheter AVR (TAVR) (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35–0.81, P = 0.003) were significantly lower compared with patients who are managed conservatively. A subgroup sensitivity analysis based on severe aortic stenosis (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.52, P = 0.0004) versus very severe aortic stenosis (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08–0.51, P = 0.0008) also mirrored the findings of overall results. Conclusion Patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis have lower odds of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality when managed with early-AVR compared with conservative management. However, because of significant heterogeneity in the classification of asymptomatic patients, large scale studies are required.