Nanna, Michael G

ABSTRACT Background Antiplatelet management in patients hospitalised for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires balancing risks of rebleeding and clinical vascular events. Aims Evaluate the impact of antiplatelet resumption timing post‐endoscopy on rebleeding and clinical vascular events. Methods We performed a retrospective nationwide cohort study of patients hospitalised with post‐PCI GIB on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using the Vizient Clinical Database. Co‐primary outcomes were 30‐day rebleeding and 90‐day clinical vascular events after endoscopy. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed. Results Among 2979 patients with both antiplatelet agents held before endoscopy for GIB (46.0% upper; 34.8% lower), antiplatelet resumption > 7 days post‐endoscopy was associated with decreased 30‐day rebleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.49–0.87]) and increased 90‐day clinical vascular events (HR 1.18 [1.02–1.36]) compared to restarting ≤ 1 day post‐endoscopy. Among 869 patients with one antiplatelet agent held before endoscopy for GIB (47.3% upper; 36.3% lower), resumption at > 7 days vs. ≤ 1 day had HR 0.69 (0.41–1.14) for rebleeding and HR 1.41 (0.97–2.04) for clinical vascular events. HRs for antiplatelet resumption > 3 days vs. ≤ 1 day post‐endoscopy were similar. Conclusions Antiplatelet resumption > 7 days after endoscopy in patients hospitalised with post‐PCI GIB is associated with decreased 30‐day rebleeding but increased 90‐day clinical vascular events compared with resumption ≤ 1 day post‐endoscopy. Similar tradeoffs were noted with antiplatelet resumption > 3 days post‐endoscopy. To optimise competing risks of rebleeding versus clinical vascular events, antiplatelet therapy should be resumed no later than 7 days post‐endoscopy, and preferably within 3–4 days.

Background Older adults with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome are less likely to undergo an invasive strategy compared with younger patients. Randomized controlled trials traditionally exclude older adults because of their high burden of geriatric conditions. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing invasive versus medical management or a selective invasive (conservative) strategy for older patients (age≥75 years) with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome. Fixed effects meta‐analysis was conducted to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for the composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI) and individual secondary end points of all‐cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding. Nine studies with 2429 patients (invasive: 1228 versus control: 1201) with a mean follow‐up of 21 months were included. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly decreased risk of a composite of death and MI (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.54–0.83], P <0.001), MI (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.45–0.70], P <0.001) and subsequent revascularization (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16–0.48], P <0.001). There was no difference in all‐cause death (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65–1.10], P =0.21), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63–1.15], P =0.30), stroke (OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.38–1.47], P =0.39), or major bleeding (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.42–3.66], P =0.70). Conclusions In older patients ≥75 years old with non–ST‐segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome, an invasive strategy reduced the risk of a composite of death and MI, MI, and subsequent revascularization compared with a conservative strategy alone. Older adults with higher burden of geriatric conditions should be included in future trials to improve generalizability to this growing population.