Effect of coumarins started before coronary angioplasty on acute complications and long-term follow-up: a randomized trial

Updated antithrombotic strategies to reduce the burden of cardiovascular recurrences in patients with chronic coronary syndrome

Despite recent achievements in secondary cardiovascular prevention, the risk of further events in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) remains elevated. Highest risk is seen in patients with recurrent events, comorbidities or multisite atherosclerosis. Optimising antithrombotic strategies in this setting may significantly improve outcomes. The higher the baseline risk, the higher the absolute event reduction with approaches using combined antithrombotic treatments. Tailoring such strategies to the individual patient risk appears crucial to achieve net benefit (i.e., substantial ischaemic event prevention at a limited cost in terms of bleeding). This paper focuses on antithrombotic and non-pharmacological approaches to secondary cardiovascular disease prevention in CCS. In particular, we critically review current evidence on the use of dual antithrombotic therapy, including the newest approach of aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulation and its net clinical outcome according to baseline risk.

High platelet reactivity – the challenge of prolonged anticoagulation therapy after ACSI

Despite dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), one-year event rates after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) vary from 9–12%. The development of novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) without a need for monitoring has initiated renewed interest for prolonged adjunctive anticoagulation. Importantly, the cornerstone of treatment after ACS consists of long-term DAPT. In that context, the NOACs have only been tested as adjunctive therapy. Of all new agents, only rivaroxaban –in a substantially lower dose than used for atrial fibrillation– has been demonstrated to improve outcome, albeit at the cost of bleeding. In selected cases, adjunctive therapy with dose-adjusted vitamin-K antagonists (international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0–3.0) can be considered as well. These two strategies of prolonged anticoagulation can be considered in case of ‘high platelet reactivity’, i.e. in patients at high risk of recurrent thrombotic events despite DAPT. Both during admission and after discharge for ACS, the use of NOACs in doses indicated for atrial fibrillation is strictly contra-indicated in patients on DAPT. In case of post-discharge anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, patients should preferably receive vitamin-K antagonists (INR 2.0–3.0), with discontinuation of one antiplatelet agent as soon as clinically justifiable. Importantly, the impact of prolonged anticoagulation (low-dose rivaroxaban, vitamin-K antagonists) as adjunctive to DAPT after ACS has not been addressed with the most potent antiplatelet agents (prasugrel, ticagrelor) and merits further study. Despite the potential indication of prolonged oral anticoagulation as adjunctive treatment, it remains to be established whether anticoagulation therapy could also be an alternative for either aspirin or thienopyridine treatment in selected ACS patients on DAPT.

Oral anticoagulants in coronary heart disease (Section IV). Position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis - Task Force on Anticoagulants in Heart Disease

Until recently, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were the only available oral anticoagulants evaluated for long-term treatment of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), particularly after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Despite efficacy in this setting, VKAs are rarely used because they are cumbersome to administer. Instead, the more readily manageable antiplatelet agents are the mainstay of prevention in ACS patients. This situation has the potential to change with the introduction of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which are easier to administer than VKAs because they can be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. The NOACs include dabigatran, which inhibits thrombin, and apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban, which inhibit factor Xa. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were evaluated in phase III trials for prevention of recurrent ischaemia in ACS patients, most of whom were also receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. Although at the doses tested rivaroxaban was effective and apixaban was not, both agents increased major bleeding. The role for the NOACs in ACS management, although promising, is therefore complicated, because it is uncertain how they compare with newer antiplatelet agents, such as prasugrel, ticagrelor or vorapaxar, and because their safety in combination with these other drugs is unknown. Ongoing studies are also now evaluating the use of NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients, where their role is established, with coexistent ACS or coronary stenting. Focusing on CHD, we review the results of clinical trials with the NOACs and provide a perspective on their future incorporation into clinical practice.

Triple therapy for atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary review

Chronic oral anticoagulant therapy is recommended (class I) in patients with mechanical heart valves and in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category) score ≥1. When these patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting, treatment with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor also becomes indicated. Before 2014, guidelines recommended the use of triple therapy (vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, and clopidogrel) for these patients. However, major bleeding is increasingly recognized as the Achilles' heel of the triple therapy regimen. Lately, various studies have investigated this topic, including a prospective randomized trial, and the evidence for adding aspirin to the regimen of vitamin K antagonists and clopidogrel seems to be weakened. In this group of patients, the challenge is finding the optimal equilibrium to prevent thromboembolic events, such as stent thrombosis and thromboembolic stroke, without increasing bleeding risk.

Vitamin K antagonists in heart disease: current status and perspectives (Section III). Position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis--Task Force on Anticoagulants in Heart Disease

Oral anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and for over 60 years vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were the only available agents for long-term use. VKAs interfere with the cyclic inter-conversion of vitamin K and its 2,3 epoxide, thus inhibiting γ-carboxylation of glutamate residues at the amino-termini of vitamin K-dependent proteins, including the coagulation factors (F) II (prothrombin), VII, IX and X, as well as of the anticoagulant proteins C, S and Z. The overall effect of such interference is a dose-dependent anticoagulant effect, which has been therapeutically exploited in heart disease since the early 1950s. In this position paper, we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of VKAs, which are used in the management of cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease (where their use is limited), stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, heart valves and/or chronic heart failure. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight areas of uncertainty, and recommend therapeutic options for specific disorders. Although VKAs are being increasingly replaced in most patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation by the new oral anticoagulants, which target either thrombin or FXa, the VKAs remain the agents of choice for patients with atrial fibrillation in the setting of rheumatic valvular disease and for those with mechanical heart valves.

Consensus document: antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary stenting. A North-American perspective

The optimal regimen of the anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies in patients with atrial fibrillation who have had a coronary stent is unclear. It is well recognised that "triple therapy" with aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. National guidelines have not made specific recommendations given the lack of adequate data. In choosing the best antithrombotic options for a patient, consideration needs to be given to the risks of stroke, stent thrombosis and major bleeding. This document describes these risks, provides specific recommendations concerning vascular access, stent choice, concomitant use of proton-pump inhibitors and the use and duration of triple therapy following stent placement based upon the risk assessment.

Pharmacological prevention of peri-, and post-procedural myocardial injury in percutaneous coronary intervention

In recent years, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become a well-established technique for the treatment of coronary artery disease. PCI improves symptoms in patients with coronary artery disease and it has been increasing safety of procedures. However, peri- and post-procedural myocardial injury, including angiographical slow coronary flow, microvascular embolization, and elevated levels of cardiac enzyme, such as creatine kinase and troponin-T and -I, has also been reported even in elective cases. Furthermore, myocardial reperfusion injury at the beginning of myocardial reperfusion, which causes tissue damage and cardiac dysfunction, may occur in cases of acute coronary syndrome. Because patients with myocardial injury is related to larger myocardial infarction and have a worse long-term prognosis than those without myocardial injury, it is important to prevent myocardial injury during and/or after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease. To date, many studies have demonstrated that adjunctive pharmacological treatment suppresses myocardial injury and increases coronary blood flow during PCI procedures. In this review, we highlight the usefulness of pharmacological treatment in combination with PCI in attenuating myocardial injury in patients with coronary artery disease.

The current role of anticoagulants in cardiovascular medicine

Thrombotic events in cardiovascular disease are a huge burden to healthcare budgets. Anticoagulant use is recommended for thrombotic event prevention in many cardiovascular diseases, including stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, treatment and secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome. Current parenteral anticoagulants include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and fondaparinux. Patients with acute coronary syndrome usually receive unfractionated heparin or a LMWH on hospital admission, both exhibit similar efficacy in reducing mortality and myocardial infarction rates; however, LMWHs may have a better safety profile and do not require routine coagulation monitoring. In acute coronary syndrome, fondaparinux use results in significantly lower mortality compared with LMWHs or unfractionated heparin. However, parenteral drugs are inconvenient for long-term outpatient use. Vitamin K antagonists are currently the only oral anticoagulants available for long-term use, but multiple drawbacks hinder their use. A large unmet need exists for new convenient and well-tolerated oral anticoagulants that do not require routine monitoring.

Drug Insight: antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with an indication for anticoagulation

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is standard care following revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention with stent insertion. This so-called dual therapy is recommended for up to 4 weeks after intervention for bare-metal stents and for 6-12 months after intervention for drug-eluting stents. Although it is estimated that 5% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention require long-term anticoagulation because of an underlying chronic medical condition, continuing treatment with triple therapy (warfarin, aspirin and clopidogrel) increases the risk of bleeding. In most patients triple antithrombotic therapy seems justified for a short period of time. In some patients, however, a more considered judgment based on absolute need for triple therapy, risk of bleeding and risk of stent thrombosis is required, but the optimum antithrombotic treatment for these patients who require long-term anticoagulation has not been defined. This Review summarizes the existing literature concerning antithrombotic therapy and makes recommendations for initiation and duration of triple therapy in the small proportion of patients already receiving anticoagulant therapy who require percutaneous coronary intervention.

Optimal antithrombotic treatment in patients with an indication for long-term anticoagulation undergoing coronary artery stenting

Dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and either ticlopidine or clopidogrel is recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation (PCI-S). However, in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing PCI-S with an indication for long-term OAC – because of atrial fibrillation, mechanical heart valve or previous thromboembolism – the optimal antithrombotic treatment is unknown. The limited evidence available shows substantial variability in the management of these patients, for whom the adopted strategies include substitution of OAC for dual antiplatelet therapy, addition of a single antiplatelet agent to OAC and institution of triple therapy with OAC, aspirin and a thienopyridine. Both the efficacy and safety of the various regimens appear suboptimal, with a 30-day occurrence of thrombotic and major bleeding complications of 4 and 3–7%, respectively. Large-scale registries and clinical trials are warranted to determine the optimal antithrombotic treatment in these patients whose number is likely to progressively increase over the coming years. In the meantime, periprocedural, medium-

and long-term antithrombotic treatment should be based on accurate risk stratification of thrombo(embolic) complications.

Effectiveness of manual pressure hemostasis following transfemoral coronary angiography in patients on therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation

We evaluated the effectiveness of manual pressure hemostasis after transfemoral coronary angiography in patients on therapeutic warfarin anticoagulation (international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) compared with discontinuing warfarin > or =48 hours before the procedure (INR <2.0). There was a low incidence of small hematomas with either strategy (no significant difference) and no major vascular complications. No prolonged hospital stay due to an access site complication was observed, and no thromboembolic events occurred. In conclusion, transfemoral coronary angiography appears to be safe in patients on warfarin with an INR of 2.0 to 3.0).

Long-term anticoagulant therapy in patients with coronary artery disease

Secondary prevention of coronary events in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with aspirin is generally accepted because of ease of administration, predictable safety, and proven efficacy. The use of long-term anticoagulant therapy with heparins, vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs), or thrombin inhibitors is, however, more controversial. During the last 40 years, several trials have been conducted in order to evaluate the role of anticoagulant therapy in patients with CAD as a protection against subsequent death and thrombo-embolic complications. The conducted trials are heterogeneous in many ways, concerning comparative medications, patient populations, endpoints and follow-up, which makes a standardized recommendation on the basis of these studies difficult. This review is an overview of the largest and best studies on this topic and discusses the scientific background for a possible use of VKA or an alternative anticoagulant treatment in CAD patients, looking at both the beneficial effects and the risk of bleeding.

Peri-procedural myocardial injury: 2005 update

During the past three decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the cardinal treatment strategies for stenotic coronary artery disease. Technical advances, including the introduction of new devices such as stents, have expanded the interventional capabilities of balloon angioplasty. At the same time, there has been a decline in the rate of major adverse cardiac events, including Q-wave acute myocardial infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, and cardiac death. Despite these advances, the incidence of post-procedural cardiac marker elevation has not substantially decreased since the first serial assessment 20 years ago. As of now, these post-procedural cardiac marker elevations are considered to represent peri-procedural myocardial injury (PMI) with worse long-term outcome potential. Recent progress has been made for the identification of two main PMI patterns, one near the intervention site (proximal type, PMI type I) and one in the distal perfusion territory of the treated coronary artery (distal type, PMI type II) as well as for preventive strategies. Integrating these new developments into the wealth of clinical information on this topic, this review aims at giving a current perspective on the entity of PMI.

Primary stenting versus primary balloon angioplasty for treating acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Balloon angioplasty following myocardial infarction (MI) reduces death, non-fatal MI and stroke compared to thrombolytic reperfusion. However up to 50% of patients experience restenosis and 3% to 5% recurrent myocardial infarction. Therefore, primary stenting may offer additional benefits compared to balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether primary stenting compared to primary balloon angioplasty reduces clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pascal, Index medicus and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1979 to March 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of primary stenting or balloon angioplasty prior to the invasive procedure; intervention in native coronary arteries within 24 hours after onset of symptoms of myocardial infarction; report of death or reinfarction; and follow-up of at least 1 month. Trials were excluded when randomisation occurred after an invasive procedure and if they exclusively included patients with cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data from identified trials. Outcomes included mortality, reinfarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, target vessel revascularization, need for vascular repair or blood transfusion. Peto odds ratios were calculated. To explore the stability of the overall treatment effect various sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials of 4433 participants. Odds ratios for mortality after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty at 30 days, 6 and 12 months were 1.16 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.73), 1.27 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.83), and 1.06 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.45). At 30 days, 6 and 12 months odds ratios for reinfarction after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty were 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.87), 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.00), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.45-0.98) and odds ratio for target vessel revascularization after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty were 0.45 (95%CI 0.34 to 0.60), 0.42 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.51), and 0.47 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.57). The odds ratio for post-interventional bleeding complications after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty was 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.88; test of heterogeneity p > 0.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest that primary stenting reduces mortality when compared to balloon angioplasty. Stenting seems to be associated with a reduced risk of reinfarction and target vessel revascularization, but potential confounding due to unbalanced post-interventional antithrombotic/anticoagulant therapies can not be ruled out on basis of this review.

Predictive value of plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 for coronary restenosis: dependence on stent implantation and antithrombotic medication

BACKGROUND

The plasmin activation system is involved in the development of restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Conflicting data exist concerning the role of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and its predictive value for restenosis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the fibrinolytic response to injury after PCI with or without stent implantation on different antithrombotic medications and its relation to late restenosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty consecutive patients with successful PCI without (balloon only; n = 37) or with stent implantation (stent; n = 43) on different antithrombotic regimes (balloon only, aspirin; stent, aspirin/coumadin/dipyridamole vs. aspirin/ticlopidine). Blood samples were taken at baseline and up to 7 days after PCI and PAI-1 active antigen and tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen were determined. Restenosis was angiographically determined after 6 months.

RESULTS

PCI increased both t-PA and PAI-1 levels (P < 0.001), with a significant prolonged and pronounced increase in stent vs. balloon-only patients (P < 0.05). Restenosis (stent 26%; balloon 38%) was significantly correlated to an attenuated PAI-1 increase after 24 h in the ticlopidine group (P = 0.007; restenosis, relative Delta PAI-1 + 50 +/- 28%; non-restenosis, + 139 +/- 50%), but not in the coumadin group. In the balloon-only group late restenosis (ISR) was associated with a trend for an augmented PAI-1 increase after 24 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary stent implantation significantly increases t-PA and PAI-1 plasma levels up to 1 week compared with balloon angioplasty alone. ISR in ticlopidine-treated patients was associated with an attenuated early PAI-1 active antigen increase. A less than 50% increase 24 h after stent implantation under ticlopidine treatment may identify patients at risk for the development of ISR.

Lack of efficacy of clopidogrel pre-treatment in the prevention of myocardial damage after elective stent implantation

OBJECTIVES

The object of this study was to determine the effect of pre-treatment with clopidogrel in patients undergoing elective stent implantation.

BACKGROUND

The treatment of patients with adenosine diphosphate receptor blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation has been shown to decrease the incidence of subacute stent thrombosis. Furthermore, non-randomized studies on pre-treatment with clopidogrel among patients undergoing stent implantation have suggested a reduction in myocardial damage and clinical events. The effect of pre-treatment with clopidogrel has been studied in only a few randomized trials.

METHODS

In a randomized trial, three days of pre-treatment with clopidogrel was compared with standard post-procedural treatment in 203 patients undergoing elective stent implantation. The primary end point was a rise in troponin I or creatine kinase-MB fraction (CK-MB) serum levels at 6 to 8 and 16 to 24 h after PCI. Secondary end points were death, stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary bypass grafting, repeated PCI, and subacute stent thrombosis at one and six months after PCI.

RESULTS

No difference was found between non-pre-treated and pre-treated patients in the post-procedural elevation of troponin I (42 [43.3%] vs. 48 [51.1%], respectively, p = 0.31) or CK-MB (6 [6.3%] vs. 7 [7.4%], respectively, p = 0.78). Adjustment for possible confounding factors did not change these findings. Patient follow-up at one and six months showed no significant difference between the treatment groups in death, stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, repeated PCI, or subacute stent thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized study, no beneficial effect of pre-treatment with clopidogrel on post-procedural elevation of troponin I and CK-MB or on clinical events after one and sixth months could be demonstrated. The study suggests that among patients with stable coronary syndromes in whom coronary stent implantation is planned, pre-treatment may not be beneficial in reducing early myocardial damage.

Clinical outcomes of primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To examine whether primary stenting as compared with primary balloon angioplasty reduces clinical outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Major medical databases from 1979 to March 2002 were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared primary stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted data from identified trials. The outcomes were mortality at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months; recurrent events; and bleeding.

RESULTS

Nine trials with a total of 4433 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The odds ratios for mortality after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 1.74) at 30 days, 1.07 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.52) at 6 months, and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.50) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for each comparison). The odds ratios for reinfarction after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87) at 30 days, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 1.00) at 6 months, and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99) at 12 months; for target vessel revascularization, they were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.61) at 30 days, 0.42 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.51) at 6 months, and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.59) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for all estimates with the exception of reinfarction at 12 months where P=0.08). The odds ratio for postinterventional bleeding complications after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.88; P for heterogeneity >0.1).

CONCLUSION

Compared with balloon angioplasty, primary stenting is not associated with lower mortality, but is associated with a lower risk of reinfarction and target vessel revascularization.

Elective coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention during uninterrupted warfarin therapy

The management of patients anticoagulated with warfarin and referred for coronary angiography presents a substantial challenge to the physician who must minimize risks of periprocedural hemorrhage and thromboembolism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of performing diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention during uninterrupted warfarin therapy. Patients treated with warfarin were prospectively identified and enrolled in the study. Nineteen diagnostic cardiac catheterizations and six percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in 23 patients. The mean international normalized ratio was 2.4 +/- 0.5 (range, 1.8-3.5). Hemostasis was achieved with AngioSeal following 21 procedures and with Perclose following 4 procedures. No patient experienced a predefined endpoint. Specifically, no patient experienced procedure-related myocardial infarction, major or minor bleeding. We conclude that cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention may be considered in the setting of uninterrupted warfarin therapy.

Delayed femoral vein thrombosis after ultrasound-guided thrombin injection of a postcatheterization pseudoaneurysm

Ultrasound-guided thrombin injection is a highly effective therapy for postcatheterization pseudoaneurysm. Despite a very low complication rate, a number of severe arterial thrombotic events have been reported. We present an unusual case of acute femoral vein thrombosis occurring several hours after successful treatment of femoral artery pseudoaneurysm by ultrasound-guided thrombin injection. Pathophysiologic mechanisms are discussed. This case highlights the potential hazards of instilling such a powerful thrombogenic substance in the immediate vicinity of other vascular structures.

What is the role for improved long-term antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention?

BACKGROUND

Coronary stent placement has replaced balloon angioplasty as the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) method of choice, primarily because of its lower restenosis rate. Compared with aspirin (ASA) monotherapy or ASA plus warfarin, the ticlopidine and ASA combination is superior in reducing thrombotic events after stenting. Clopidogrel plus ASA appears to be at least as effective as ticlopidine and ASA. Intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors effectively prevent periprocedural thrombotic complications, but their short duration of action and parenteral dosing don't allow for long-term protection. This review aimed to answer how long after PCI with a stent patients are at risk for recurrent thrombotic events and what the optimal way to prevent them is.

RESULTS

Classically, ASA has been prescribed indefinitely, whereas adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists have been discontinued after 2 to 4 weeks. However, the Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) trial found that long-term dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and ASA was more effective than ASA alone in preventing major cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome, including those treated with PCI.

CONCLUSION

Results from additional ongoing studies are needed to clarify the role of long-term dual oral antiplatelet therapy in preventing ischemic events in patients who have undergone PCI.

Oral anticoagulants in patients with coronary artery disease

Oral anticoagulants have been used in patients with vascular disease for over 40 years, yet their role in the secondary prevention of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events remains controversial. The objectives of this systematic review are to more reliably determine the role of oral anticoagulants with and without antiplatelet therapy in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Randomized trials in which oral anticoagulants were tested in CAD patients who were treated for at least three months were identified, and each trial was classified by the targeted level of intensity of anticoagulation. Data from the trials were combined using the modified Mantel-Haenszel method, and odds ratios were computed. Data from over 20,000 patients indicated that high-intensity oral anticoagulation (international normalized ratio [INR] >2.8) significantly reduced CV complications and increased bleeding compared with controls. Moderate-intensity oral anticoagulation (INR 2 to 3) also reduced CV complications compared with controls. The combination of moderate-intensity oral anticoagulation and aspirin is more effective and equally as safe as aspirin alone. Low-intensity oral anticoagulation (INR <2) in the presence of aspirin does not reduce CV complications and increases bleeding compared with aspirin alone.

Oral anticoagulation after myocardial infarction

In the present review, the role of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in the secondary prophylaxis a long term after myocardial infarction (MI) is discussed in the light of the results from recently published large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In particular, comparision with aspirin, alone or in combination with OAC, is presented. The pathophysiological role of atherothrombosis in MI, with special stress on the crucial role of thrombin generation representing a special rationale for OAC prophylaxis, is emphasized. Recent RCTs clearly show the superiority of OAC over aspirin to reduce clinical end points a long term after MI. A prerequisite for optimal effect of OAC is a knowledge of the narrow therapeutic window towards bleeding complications. This necessitates good patient compliance and strict control of the treatment. The INR threshold for effective prophylaxis with OAC after MI, when given alone or in combination with aspirin, is also presented. The possibility of self-management of INR controls with satisfactory quality and cost reduction is also highlighted. Finally, the combination of OAC with a target INR of 2.0-2.5 (2.3) and aspirin of 75 mg/day is especially recommended.

Is direct stent implantation without predilatation safe? Acute and long-term outcome

Direct stenting could potentially lead to a reduction in dissections, time, and restenosis at 6-month follow-up. Using the premounted Palmaz-Schatz Crown stent elective stenting was performed without predilatation in 61 consecutive patients who were compared with a control group of provisional stenting. All patients underwent clinical and angiographic follow-up at 6 months. Direct stenting was successful in 81% of patients. In 16% of the patients predilatation was needed. In 3% the stent could not be implanted despite predilatation. Stent dislodgment occurred in 2% of patients, without embolization. Six-month angiographic follow-up was performed in 51 (84%) of 61 patients. In the direct stenting group the mean preprocedural minimal luminal diameter (MLD) increased from 0.96 +/- 0.47 to 3.09 +/- 0.54 mm directly after the procedure. At 6-month follow-up the MLD measured 2.32 +/- 0.79 mm. In the provisional stenting group the mean MLD increased from 0.92 +/- 0.51 to 2.44 +/- 0.58 mm and was 1.84 +/- 0.70 mm at 6-month follow-up. Restenosis, defined as a diameter stenosis > 50%, occurred in 8% of the direct stenting group compared with 28% in the provisional stenting group (P < 0.001). Direct coronary stent implantation can be attempted safely and efficaciously. The risk of stent loss is low. The initial and long-term angiographic results are significantly better as compared with provisional stenting. The risk of restenosis is significantly lower.

Meta-analysis of randomized and registry comparisons of ticlopidine with clopidogrel after stenting

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether clopidogrel is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine.

BACKGROUND

Several trials have supported the enhanced safety and tolerability of clopidogrel compared with ticlopidine after coronary stent deployment. However, none of these individual trials were powered to detect possible differences in the efficacy for reducing ischemic end points.

METHODS

Published data from trials and registries that compared clopidogrel with ticlopidine in patients receiving coronary stents were pooled, and a formal meta-analysis was performed. The rate of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as defined in each trial, was used as the primary end point.

RESULTS

There were a total of 13,955 patients. The pooled rate of major adverse cardiac events was 2.10% in the clopidogrel group and 4.04% in the ticlopidine group. After adjustment for heterogeneity in the trials, the odds ratio (OR) of having an ischemic event with clopidogrel, as compared with ticlopidine, was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.89, p = 0.002). Mortality was also lower in the clopidogrel group compared with the ticlopidine group-0.48% versus 1.09% (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on all available evidence from randomized clinical trials or registries, clopidogrel, in addition to better tolerability and fewer side effects, is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine in reducing MACE. This finding may be due to the more rapid onset of an antiplatelet effect seen with the loading dose of clopidogrel, which was used in most of these studies, or to better patient compliance with clopidogrel therapy. Therefore, clopidogrel plus aspirin should replace ticlopidine plus aspirin as the standard antiplatelet regimen after stent deployment.

Costs and effectiveness of using coumarins before, during and after coronary angioplasty

BACKGROUND

In the Balloon Angioplasty and Anticoagulation Study (BAAS), coumarins added to routine aspirin therapy before coronary angioplasty reduced cardiac events at the cost of a slightly higher risk of bleeding complications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness of coumarin treatment, based on the occurrence of both cardiac and bleeding events.

METHODS

Effectiveness was measured, applying two definitions, in terms of the number of events occurring at one year. In the first definition, the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was assessed. The second definition also included revascularisations and major bleeding episodes as an event. Costs were limited to direct medical costs. Cost effectiveness was addressed by probability ellipses representing the point estimates and uncertainties surrounding both costs and effectiveness.

RESULTS

At 1 year, death, MI or stroke occurred 1.1% less often when treating with aspirin plus coumarins rather than aspirin therapy alone. When revascularisations and major bleeding events were also included, the difference was 5.0%. Overall, the additional costs in relation to coumarin treatment were compensated by a reduction in repeat interventions. When including all costs, the savings associated with coumarin treatment were estimated at Euros 235 per patient after 1 year. The probability that coumarins are cost saving was estimated at 0.85. The probability that coumarins combine additional effectiveness with cost savings was estimated at 0.70 when survival free of MI or stroke as an effectiveness measure was considered, and at 0.83 when survival free of MI, stroke, revascularisation or major bleeding was considered.

CONCLUSION

Coumarin therapy added to routine aspirin therapy before coronary angioplasty, and continued during follow-up, may not only be considered more effective but also cost saving relative to aspirin therapy alone.

Warfarin for ischemic heart disease

Oral anticoagulation is one of the oldest ways for preventing secondary ischemic heart disease. With the introduction of aspirin, and low-dose aspirin in particular, the interest in oral anticoagulants has diminished, given the inherent bleeding risk. This short review deals with the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation in treating ischemic heart disease compared to placebo and to low-dose aspirin. Also, the comparison of the combination of oral anticoagulants and aspirin to aspirin alone is made. After myocardial infarction, oral anticoagulation is far superior to placebo in preventing recurrent ischemic events, with a risk of major bleeding of 1 per 100 patient-years. Oral anticoagulation seems equivalent to aspirin after myocardial infarction, but shows the same excess bleeding. Clearly, aspirin is, therefore, preferable for this indication. Combination therapy with oral anticoagulants and aspirin seems superior to aspirin alone provided the international normalized ratio is kept over 2.0. Also, here bleeding occurs in 1 out of 100 patient-years and the risk must be weighed against the risk of recurrent ischemic events. In coronary angioplasty, warfarin given before intervention looks promising in one large trial, but when given after intervention it is not beneficial and leads to more bleeding. Long-term oral anticoagulation does not lead to better graft patency after coronary surgery, but in one large trial it did lead to a better rate of survival.

Overview of therapies for prevention of restenosis after coronary interventions

Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and across the world. The economic impact of coronary artery disease is staggering and on the rise. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is widely used to treat severe, symptomatic coronary stenosis. The Achilles heel of angioplasty is restenosis of those treated arteries. As a result, numerous therapies, including mechanical and pharmacological approaches, to prevent restenosis have been studied. A greater understanding of the pathophysiology of restenosis has enhanced the success of these therapeutic approaches. To date, the most important and successful approach to limit restenosis has been the use of coronary stents. Stents have reduced the rate of restenosis from approximately 50% down to 20-30%. However, in-stent restenosis presents a new and an even more challenging dilemma. The success of adjunctive drug therapy has been promising, but, as of yet, very limited. Antithrombotic agents have reduced acute thrombosis and many of the acute complications of angioplasty. New approaches and therapies are very encouraging, and provide great hope in the treatment of restenosis. Brachytherapy has shown success in the treatment of in-stent restenosis, and recently has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for this indication. Drug-eluting stents using antiproliferative drugs are the most exciting new advance in preventing restenosis, currently in Phase III trials. Gene therapy, targeted drug delivery, and newer antithrombotic agents are also under investigation. We will review the pathophysiology of restenosis, animal models, pharmacological therapies, and mechanical approaches for the treatment of restenosis.

Influence of planned six-month follow-up angiography on late outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized study

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this research was to study the effect of planned angiography on late clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

It is still largely unknown whether planned follow-up angiography after coronary angioplasty influences late outcome.

METHODS

Randomization assigned 527 patients to clinical follow-up alone and 531 to clinical and six-month angiographic follow-up. The effect of planned angiography on clinical outcome at one and three years after coronary angioplasty was studied.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched. At one year, more events occurred in the angiographic group than in the clinical group: 122 (23.2%) versus 88 (16.7%) (p = 0.01). While the incidence of death or myocardial infarction (MI) was similar at one year, the revascularization rate was higher in the angiographic group: 113 (21.3%) versus 67 (12.7%) (relative risk = 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 2.3, p = 0.0003). At three years, still more events had occurred in the angiographic group (146 [34.5%] vs. 114 [26.3%], p = 0.03). More reinterventions did not improve late survival. However, there was a nonsignificant reduction in MI (7 [1.3%] vs. 13 [2.5%], p = NS) and a significant improvement in functional class at the end of follow-up (freedom from angina 81% vs. 74%, p = 0.03). The effect of follow-up angiography on the reintervention rate was similar for stented and nonstented patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Planned follow-up angiography to evaluate the late results of coronary intervention led to a 1.7 times higher reintervention rate. This effect was similar for stented and nonstented patients. More reinterventions did not improve survival but tended to reduce the incidence of MI and led to a significantly better functional class at follow-up.

Provisional stenting in the real world: results in 1058 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary angioplasty

OBJECTIVE: To study a strategy of aggressive coronary balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting in allcomers. In randomized trials, stenting has improved the outcome of patients undergoing coronary intervention. However, whether these results hold up in clinical practice is largely unknown. Furthermore, the results of balloon angioplasty have also improved dramatically. It is therefore essential to evaluate the current results of balloon angioplasty and to assess whether stents are required in all patients. METHODS: The authors prospectively studied the occurrence of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) of a large consecutive group of patients undergoing aggressive balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. None of the patients received a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blocker. The results were compared with the outcome of routine stenting in recent randomized trials. RESULTS: Angioplasty was performed in 1058 patients of whom 369 (34.9%) received a stent. The angiographic success rate was 98.9%. During hospital stay, 4.8% of the patients suffered any cardiac event. At one-year follow-up, death occurred in 1.1%, MI in 3.3%, TLR in 12.4% and any event in 16.7% of the patients. Event-free survival at one-year was 82.3%. These results compare favorably with routine stenting in recent trials. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting yields excellent results in a general patient population.

Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study

BACKGROUND

Despite the use of aspirin, there is still a risk of ischaemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to find out whether, in addition to aspirin, pretreatment with clopidogrel followed by long-term therapy after PCI is superior to a strategy of no pretreatment and short-term therapy for only 4 weeks after PCI.

METHODS

2658 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI in the CURE study had been randomly assigned double-blind treatment with clopidogrel (n=1313) or placebo (n=1345). Patients were pretreated with aspirin and study drug for a median of 6 days before PCI during the initial hospital admission, and for a median of 10 days overall. After PCI, most patients (>80%) in both groups received open-label thienopyridine for about 4 weeks, after which study drug was restarted for a mean of 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularisation within 30 days of PCI. The main analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

There were no drop-outs. 59 (4.5%) patients in the clopidogrel group had the primary endpoint, compared with 86 (6.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk 0.70 [95% CI 0.50-0.97], p=0.03). Long-term administration of clopidogrel after PCI was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation (p=0.03), and of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.047). Overall (including events before and after PCI) there was a 31% reduction cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.002). There was less use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the clopidogrel group (p=0.001). At follow-up, there was no significant difference in major bleeding between the groups (p=0.64).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving aspirin, a strategy of clopidogrel pretreatment followed by long-term therapy is beneficial in reducing major cardiovascular events, compared with placebo.

Mechanisms of angioplasty and stent restenosis: implications for design of rational therapy

Restenosis after angioplasty or stenting remains the major limitation of both procedures. A vast array of drug therapies has been used to prevent restenosis, but they have proven to be predominantly unsuccessful. Recent trends in drug therapy have attempted to refine the molecular and biological targets of therapy, based on the assumption that a single biological process or molecule is critical to restenosis. In contrast, both stenting and brachytherapy, which are highly nonspecific, can successfully reduce restenosis after angioplasty or stenting, respectively. This review examines the biology of both angioplasty and stent stenosis, focussing on human studies. We also review the landmark human trials that have definitively proven successful therapies, such as stenting and brachytherapy. We suggest that the successful trials of stenting and brachytherapy and the failure of other treatments have highlighted the shortcomings of conventional animal models of arterial intervention, and gaps in our knowledge of human disease. In contrast to arguments advocating gene therapy, these studies suggest that the most likely successful drug therapy will have a wide therapeutic range, targeting as many of the components or biological processes contributing to restenosis as possible.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Thrombosis plays a major role in acute vessel closure both after coronary balloon angioplasty and after stenting. This review will address the role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in preventing early thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. The focus will be on agents that are routinely available and commonly used.