Citations

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.

Background: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) in conjunction with atrial fibrillation (AF) presents unique management challenges. CHA2DS2VASc score in these patients is believed to underestimate the risk of ischemic stroke, necessitating a better predictive model in these patients. Methods: Data was obtained from the National Readmission Database (NRD). Outcomes between CA-AF and no-CA-AF were compared using multivariate regression analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR). AutoScore; an interpretable machine learning framework, was used to develop a stroke risk prediction model, the predictive accuracy of which was evaluated with an area under the curve (AUC) using the receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: A total of 11,860,804 (CA-AF 22,687 [0.19%] and no-CA-AF 11,838,117) patients were identified from 2015-2019. The adjusted odds of mortality (aOR 1.41 and 1.29), stroke (aOR 1.78 and 1.74), non-intracranial hemorrhage (aOR 2.10 and aOR 1.85), and intracranial hemorrhage (aOR 14.4 and aOR 4.26) were significantly higher in CA-AF compared with non-CA-AF at both index admission and 30-days, respectively. The CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score had a poor discriminative accuracy for stroke at 30-days in CA-AF (AUC 49%, 95%CI 47%-51%, p=0.54). The machine learning autoscore integrative model revealed that the predictive ability of our newly proposed E-CHADS score (end-stage renal disease (ESRD), congestive heart failure, hypertension, active cancer, dementia, and diabetes mellitus) for 30-day risk of ischemic stroke in CA-AF was excellent (for a cutoff of 52 points random forest score) with an AUC of 80% (95%CI 74%-86%) Conclusion: Cardiac amyloidosis carries a high risk of ischemic stroke that is not accurately predicted by the CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score. Our proposed model (E-CHADS) identifies 3 new variables (ESRD, dementia, and cancer) that have higher discriminative accuracy for ischemic stroke in these patients.

Aim We sought to determine the racial and ethnical disparities in the delivery of TAVR and to evaluate the in-hospital outcomes and utilization of TAVR stratified by patient ethnicity. Method Using a national inpatient sample database between 2011 and 2015, we identified all adult patients who had TAVR. Races were identified and white race was set as control. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed for the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Results Out of 58 174 patients who underwent TAVR, 50 809 (87.3%) were white, 2327 (4.0%) were black, 2311 (4.0%) were Hispanic, 640 (1.1%) Asian, 105 (0.2%) Native American and 1982 (3.4%) of other ethnicities. We found a statistically significant linear uptrend in the utilization of TAVR in patients of all races between the years 2011 and 2015. White, black, Hispanic and Native American patients had a downward linear trend for mortality during the studied years ( P ≤ 0.005 for all). Black patients had lower in-hospital mortality [2.8 vs. 3.6%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44, 0.81 P < 0.001] compared with white patients, whereas Hispanic patients and Native Americans had higher in-hospital mortality compared with white patients (4.5% OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.01, 1.56 P = 0.041), (9.5% OR 4.44; 95% CI 2.25, 8.77 P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion Overall, TAVR utilization is associated with lower mortality. There is a rising trend in utilization of TAVR in the black population with a significantly favorable mortality trend compared with the white population.

Abstract Background The management of patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is a challenge of daily practice. Evidence on early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus symptom-driven approach is controversial. Methods Electronic databases were searched and articles comparing early-AVR with conservative management for severe asymptomatic AS were identified. The pooled unadjusted odds ratio (OR) was computed using a random-effects model. Results A total of 10 studies (observational=9, and randomized clinical trials=1) consisting of 5,291 patients were included. On a mean follow up duration of 4 years, the odds of early-AVR vs conservative management were in favour for early intervention in terms of cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13–0.53, p=0.0002, figure-1) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17–0.41, p≤00001). The number needed to treat (NNT) by performing early AVR (either SAVR or TAVR) to prevent one death secondary to either cardiovascular or all-cause was 8 (95% CI: 6–10), and 5 (95% CI, 4.2–5.4) respectively. The odds of all-cause mortality in a selected patient population undergoing surgical AVR (SAVR) (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10–0.29, p≤0.00001) or transcatheter AVR (TAVR) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31–0.64, p≤0.0001) were significantly lower compared to patients who were managed conservatively. A subgroup sensitivity analysis based on severe vs. very severe AS and early vs. symptom based AVR also mirrored the findings of overall results. Conclusions Patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis have lower odds of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality when managed with early-AVR compared to conservative management. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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.