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 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) face unique challenges due to complex anatomy and comorbidities. Intravascular imaging [including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT)] has been shown to improve PCI outcomes, but its benefits in older adults are less well established. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare intravascular imaging with angiography alone to guide PCI in older adults. Methods Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for RCTs comparing intravascular imaging (IVUS or OCT) vs. angiography alone in adults aged ≥65 years. The outcome of interest was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the longest follow-up, as defined by each trial. Subgroup analyses were performed based on intravascular imaging modality, age group, and lesion complexity. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins’ I ² statistic. Results Nine RCTs ( n = 7164, intravascular imaging = 3703, angiography alone = 3461) met the inclusion criteria. Intravascular imaging significantly reduced MACE compared with angiography alone [relative risk (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.77; P < 0.001; I ² = 0%]. IVUS demonstrated superiority over angiography alone (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.72; P < 0.001; I ² = 0%), while OCT demonstrated only a trend toward MACE reduction (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62–1.02). Subgroup analyses indicated consistent benefits with intravascular imaging for adults aged ≥65 and ≥70 years, respectively, and among those with complex coronary lesions (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.79; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intravascular imaging guidance, especially IVUS, reduces MACE in older adults undergoing PCI compared with angiography alone.

Background: The research on the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) are limited. Hypothesis: This study aims to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short-term (30 days), mid-term (1 year), and long-term (>1 year) endpoints. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 25, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 11 RCTs comprising 4,325 patients (2,295 BEV, 2,030 SEV) were included. At short-term, the risk of cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.87) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81) were lower in the BEV group. However, no differences were noted between the two treatment modalities in longer follow-ups despite the lower risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) among BEV patients. The risk of stroke was comparable between two groups across all three follow-up endpoints, albeit a limited number of studies suggesting the BEV group showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis in mid-term and long-term assessments. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV arm in short-term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.87) and mid-term (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94). Yet, this difference was not observed in long-term follow-ups. Conversely, the SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient from short-term (MD: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.26 and MD: 3.71, 95% CI: 2.64-4.78, respectively) to long-term (MD: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17-0.32 and MD: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.19-4.27, respectively) periods. Conclusions: BEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes at short-term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL. Conversely, SEV is linked to better hemodynamic outcomes and a lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis across all follow-up durations.

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.

Background: Female patients have historically received less aggressive lipid management than male patients. Contemporary care patterns and the potential causes for these differences are unknown. Methods and Results: Examining the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry—a nationwide registry of outpatients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—we compared the use of statin therapy, guideline-recommended statin dosing, and reasons for undertreatment. We specifically analyzed sex differences in statin treatment and guideline-recommended statin dosing using multivariable logistic regression. Among 5693 participants (43% women) eligible for 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline–recommended statin treatment, women were less likely than men to be prescribed any statin therapy (67.0% versus 78.4%; P <0.001) or to receive a statin at the guideline-recommended intensity (36.7% versus 45.2%; P <0.001). Women were more likely to report having previously never been offered statin therapy (18.6% versus 13.5%; P <0.001), declined statin therapy (3.6% versus 2.0%; P <0.001), or discontinued their statin (10.9% versus 6.1%; P <0.001). Women were also less likely than men to believe statins were safe (47.9% versus 55.2%; P <0.001) or effective (68.0% versus 73.2%; P <0.001) and more likely to report discontinuing their statin because of a side effect (7.9% versus 3.6%; P <0.001). Sex differences in both overall and guideline-recommended intensity statin use persisted after adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors, clinical characteristics, patient beliefs, and provider characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81; P <0.001; and odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.92; P <0.01, respectively). Sex differences were consistent across primary and secondary prevention indications for statin treatment. Conclusions: Women eligible for statin therapy were less likely than men to be treated with any statin or guideline-recommended statin intensity. A combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, while declining and discontinuing treatment more frequently, accounted for these sex differences in statin use.

Background Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and Results We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline‐recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high‐dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old ( P =0.83); high‐dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups ( P =0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [ P =0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.01 [ P =0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high‐intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [ P <0.0001]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.65 [ P =0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P =0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; P <0.001). Conclusions Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged >75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high‐intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.