Oral Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Research Articles

Perioperative complications of arteriovenous tirofiban administration versus oral dual antiplatelet therapy for stent-assisted embolization treated aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A retrospective, controlled cohort analysis.

Major perioperative complications of stent-assisted embolization treated for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients include the formation of thromboembolic events (TEs) and hemorrhagic events (HEs), for which antiplatelet protocols play a key role. We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis to compare the differences between arteriovenous tirofiban administration with traditional oral dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). A total of 417 consecutive patients were enrolled. General clinical characteristics, as well as the perioperative ischemic and hemorrhagic events, were retracted in digital documents. Logistic regression was conducted to identify both risk and protective factors of perioperative TEs and HEs. Perioperative TEs occurred in 21 patients, with an overall perioperative TEs rate of approximately 5.04%; among these patients, the incidence of perioperative TEs in the tirofiban group was less than that in the DAPT group. Additionally, 66 patients developed perioperative HEs, with an incidence of approximately 15.83%; among these patients, the incidence of perioperative HEs was less than that in the DAPT group. No significant differences were seen between the two groups in terms of the mRS score at the time of discharge. This study indicated that an improved perioperative antiplatelet drug tirofiban was an independent protective factor for perioperative TEs in stent-assisted embolization of ruptured intracranial aneurysms, but it did not impart an elevated risk of perioperative HEs and had no significant effects on the near-term prognosis of the patients.

Patterns of Care in the Diagnosis and Management of Intracranial Atherosclerosis‐Related Large‐Vessel Occlusion: The Rescue‐LVO Survey

Background We aimed to determine the current practice patterns among neurointerventional practitioners frequently involved in treating intracranial atherosclerosis‐related large‐vessel occlusion (ICAS‐LVO) during mechanical thrombectomy. Methods We conducted an international online survey of neurointerventionalist members of the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology and Society of Neurointerventional Surgery. The 28‐question poll evaluated the preferences on diagnosis, treatment, and endovascular approach to ICAS‐LVO. Results A total of 184 individual survey responses were obtained from practicing neurointerventional physicians. Overall, 38.3% reported an incidence of 6% to 10% of ICAS‐LVO during mechanical thrombectomy. Most neurointerventionalists (91%) diagnose ICAS‐LVO after a continued or recurrent occlusion or by the presence of fixed focal stenosis after multiple mechanical thrombectomy attempts. Most respondents (86%) preferred acute treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting (RS)±angioplasty. However, in patients who achieved recanalization with a severe fixed focal stenosis, most (58%) recommended primary medical management. The preferred medication during acute RS was intravenous antiplatelet therapy (65%), and after acute RS, it was dual oral antiplatelet therapy (65%). Fear of hemorrhagic complications (74%) was the most compelling reason not to perform RS±angioplasty. Of respondents, 24% were hesitant to randomize patients to acute RS versus medical therapy in a future randomized trial because of the lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose ICAS‐LVO before mechanical thrombectomy treatment. Conclusions The findings of this survey highlight the variations in practice in the medical and endovascular management of ICAS‐LVO. In addition, it informs the situation of equipoise in the treatment decision in ICAS‐LVO, which can then be incorporated into the design of future randomized clinical trials.

Abstract 056: Patterns of Care in the Management of Intracranial Atherosclerosis‐related Large Vessel Occlusion–the RESCUE‐LVO survey

Introduction Intracranial atherosclerosis‐related large vessel occlusion (ICAS‐LVO) is a common cause of failed mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) [1]. Treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting and/or angioplasty has shown promising outcomes, but diagnosing ICAS‐LVO during MT can be challenging [2, 3]. There are uncertainties regarding optimal approaches, techniques, and timing for treating ICAS‐LVO. To understand current practice patterns and address these uncertainties, we conducted a survey among neurointerventional practitioners experienced in ICAS‐LVO management during MT. Methods We conducted an international online survey of neurointerventionalist members of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN). The 28‐question poll evaluated the preferences on diagnosis, treatment, and endovascular approach to ICAS‐LVO. Results 168 individual survey responses were obtained from practicing neurointerventional physicians. Overall, 40.6% reported an incidence of 6–10% of ICAS‐LVO during MT. Most neurointerventionalists (91%) diagnose ICAS‐LVO after a continued or recurrent occlusion or by the presence of fixed focal stenosis (FFS) after multiple MT attempts. Most respondents (86%) preferred acute treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting (RS) +/‐ angioplasty. However, in patients who achieved recanalization with a severe FFS, the majority (44%) recommended maximal medical management only. The preferred medication during acute RS was intravenous antiplatelet therapy (69%), and after acute RS was dual oral antiplatelet therapy (58%). Fear of hemorrhagic complications (70%) was the most compelling reason not to perform RS +/‐ angioplasty. Twenty‐five percent of respondents were hesitant to randomize patients to acute RS versus medical therapy in a future randomized trial because of the lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose ICAS‐LVO before MT treatment. Conclusion Our survey highlights the significant variability and uncertainty in the diagnosis and management of ICAS‐LVO during MT among neurointerventional practitioners. There is no equipoise regarding the optimal treatment strategy, and the fear of hemorrhagic complications associated with antithrombotic medications contributes to the variation in practice. Our survey underscores the need for future research and randomized clinical trials to address the uncertainties in the management of ICAS‐LVO during MT. Improved imaging biomarkers and consensus guidelines are essential to guide clinical decision‐making and optimize patient outcomes in this challenging population of AIS patients.

Safety of Intravenous Cangrelor Versus Dual Oral Antiplatelet Loading Therapy in Endovascular Treatment of Tandem Lesions: An Observational Cohort Study

Background Procedural intravenous cangrelor has been proposed as an effective platelet inhibition strategy for stenting in acute ischemic stroke. We aimed to compare the safety profile of low‐dose intravenous cangrelor versus dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) loading in patients with acute cervical tandem lesions. Methods We retrospectively identified cases from an international multicenter cohort who underwent intraprocedural administration of intravenous cangrelor (15 μg/kg followed by an infusion of 2 μg/kg per min) or DAPT loading during acute tandem lesions intervention. Safety outcomes included rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, parenchymal hematoma type 2, petechial hemorrhage, and in‐stent thrombosis. Inverse probability of treatment weighting matching was used to reduce confounding. Results From 691 patients, we included 195 patients, 30 of whom received intravenous cangrelor and 165 DAPT. The DAPT regimens were aspirin+clopidogrel (93.3%) or aspirin+ticagrelor (6.6%). After inverse probability of treatment weighting, the patients treated with cangrelor were not at greater odds of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (odds ratio [OR], 1.30 [95% CI, 0.09–17.3]; P =0.837), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage–parenchymal hematoma type 2 (OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.05–4.98]; P =0.589), or petechial hemorrhage (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.38–3.28]; P =0.836). Similarly, the rate of in‐stent thrombosis was not significantly different between the 2 groups (1.8% versus 0%; P =0.911). Conclusion Cangrelor at the half dose of the myocardial infarction protocol showed a similar safety profile compared with the commonly used DAPT loading protocols in patients with acute tandem lesions. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to elucidate the safety of antiplatelet therapy in tandem lesions.

Rescue therapy after thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion due to underlying atherosclerosis: review of literature.

In this review article, we summarized the current advances in rescue management for reperfusion therapy of acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion due to underlying intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS). It is estimated that 24-47% of patients with acute vertebrobasilar artery occlusion have underlying ICAS and superimposed in situ thrombosis. These patients have been found to have longer procedure times, lower recanalization rates, higher rates of reocclusion and lower rates of favorable outcomes than patients with embolic occlusion. Here, we discuss the most recent literature regarding the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, angioplasty alone, or angioplasty with stenting for rescue therapy in the setting of failed recanalization or instant/imminent reocclusion during thrombectomy. We also present a case of rescue therapy post intravenous tPA and thrombectomy with intra-arterial tirofiban and balloon angioplasty followed by oral dual antiplatelet therapy in a patient with dominant vertebral artery occlusion due to ICAS. Based on the available literature data, we conclude that glycoprotein IIb/IIIa is a reasonably safe and effective rescue therapy for patients who have had a failed thrombectomy or have residual severe intracranial stenosis. Balloon angioplasty and/or stenting may be helpful as a rescue treatment for patients who have had a failed thrombectomy or are at risk of reocclusion. The effectiveness of immediate stenting for residual stenosis after successful thrombectomy is still uncertain. Rescue therapy does not appear to increase the risk of sICH. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to prove the efficacy of rescue therapy.

Comparison of clinical outcomes with cangrelor plus aspirin versus oral dual antiplatelet therapy in patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Patients with refractory cardiogenic shock from an acute myocardial infarction may receive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and require the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The purpose of this study was to compare bleeding and thrombotic events in patients treated with cangrelor plus aspirin versus oral dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) while supported with VA-ECMO. We conducted a retrospective review of patients who received PCI, were supported with VA-ECMO, and were treated with either cangrelor plus aspirin or oral DAPT from February 2016 through May 2021 at Allegheny General Hospital. The primary objective was the incidence of major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or greater. The incidence of thrombotic events was a secondary objective. Thirty-seven patients were included, 19 in the cangrelor plus aspirin group, and 18 in the oral DAPT group. All the patients in the cangrelor group received a dose of 0.75 mcg/kg/min. Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (36.8%) in the cangrelor group compared to 7 patients (38.9%) in the oral DAPT group (p = 0.90). No patient developed stent thrombosis. Two patients (10.5%) in the cangrelor group had a thrombotic event versus 3 patients (16.7%) in the oral DAPT group (p = 0.66). Bleeding and thrombotic events were comparable between patients receiving cangrelor plus aspirin versus oral DAPT while on VA-ECMO.

Effectiveness of dual antiplatelet de-escalation therapy on the prognosis of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

AimTo investigate the effectiveness of de-escalation of ticagrelor (from ticagrelor 90 mg to clopidogrel 75 mg or ticagrelor 60 mg) on the prognosis of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after 3 months of oral dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).MethodsFrom March 2017 to August 2021, 1056 patients with STEMI in a single centre, through retrospective investigation and analysis, were divided into intensive (ticagrelor 90 mg), standard (clopidogrel 75 mg after PCI) and de-escalation groups (clopidogrel 75 mg or ticagrelor 60 mg after 3 months of treatment with 90 mg ticagrelor) based on the type and dose of P2Y12 inhibitor 3 months after PCI, and the patients had a ≥ 12-month history of oral DAPT. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) during the 12-month follow-up period, including composite end points of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven revascularization and stroke. The major safety endpoint was bleeding events.ResultsThe results showed that during the follow-up period, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of MACCEs between the intensive and de-escalation groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of MACCEs in the standard treatment group was higher than that in the intensive treatment group (P = 0.014), but the incidence of bleeding events in the de-escalation group was significantly lower than that in the standard group (9.3% vs. 18.4%, χ²=7.191, P = 0.027). The Cox regression analysis showed that increases in haemoglobin (HGB) (HR = 0.986) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (HR = 0.983) could reduce the incidence of MACCEs, while old myocardial infarction (OMI) (P = 0.023) and hypertension (P = 0.013) were independent predictors of MACCEs.ConclusionFor STEMI patients undergoing PCI, the de-escalation scheme of ticagrelor to clopidogrel 75 mg or ticagrelor 60 mg at 3 months after PCI was related to the reduction of bleeding events, especially minor bleeding events, without an increase in ischaemic events.

Multiple arterial thrombosis

Bleeding following any injury is due to damaged blood vessel and is usually kept in check by a process called hemostasis. At times, this process may be abnormally affected by pathological factors or causes subsequently leading to thrombus formation and occlusion of blood vessels. It can affect either arteries or veins. The events in the pathogenesis of thrombosis occur in a vicious cycle. We report a case of 38-year-old male with multiple arterial thrombosis involving brachial artery, common carotid artery, and main pulmonary artery. He had raised hemoglobin, hematocrit, mean corpuscular volume, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin on presentation. He was successfully treated with injection alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator), injection enoxaparin, and dual oral antiplatelet therapy.

Safety and efficacy of intravenous tirofiban for stent-assisted coiling in acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms: A single center experience.

There have been few reports on the use of tirofiban in ruptured intracranial aneurysms and the results were conflicting. However, the safety and efficacy of optimal dosage and the reasonable treatment course of tirofiban have not been determined. To determine the safety and efficacy of a new protocol for its prophylactic tirofiban application during the endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with no oral antiplatelet medications. This retrospective study was based on 105 patients with ruptured aneurysms who underwent stent-assisted coiling at our institution between August 2017 and July 2020. Intravenous tirofiban was administered to patients after stent deployment. Tirofiban was administered as an intravenous bolus (5 µg/kg) over a 3 min period immediately after stent deployment, followed by a 0.06-0.08 µg/kg/min maintenance infusion for 12-24 h. Dual oral antiplatelet therapy was overlapped with half the tirofiban dose 2 h before the cessation of the tirofiban infusion. Cases of intracranial hemorrhage or thromboembolism were recorded. This study included a total of 105 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, who underwent stent-assisted coiling. In terms of clinical severity, a presenting Hunt-Hess clinical-grade I was observed in 47 (44.8%) cases, grade II in 19 (18.1%) cases, grade III in 30 (28.6%) cases, grade IV in 6 (5.6%) cases, and grade V in 3 (2.9%) cases. None of the patients showed a newly developed tirofiban-related intracerebral hemorrhage, intraventricular hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or ventriculostomy-related hemorrhage. There were 3 (2.8%) patients who had thromboembolic complications. We have determined a new protocol for prophylactic intraoperative tirofiban during the endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms with no oral antiplatelet medications. In our study, tirofiban showed a low risk of hemorrhagic or thromboembolic complications. Tirofiban appears to be a safe and alternative during the stent-assisted coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Vertebral artery dissection and associated ruptured intracranial pseudoaneurysm successfully treated with coil assisted flow diversion: A case report and review of the literature.

Dissecting intracranial pseudoaneurysms (IPs) are associated with a high incidence of rupture and poor neurologic outcomes. Lesions in the posterior circulation are particularly malignant and pose even greater management challenges. Traditional management consists of microsurgical vessel sacrifice with or without bypass. Flow diversion (FD) in the setting of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) represents a reconstructive treatment option and can be paired with coil embolization to promote more rapid thrombosis of the lesion. We report a case of a ruptured dissecting vertebral artery (VA) IP successfully acutely treated with coil-assisted FD. A 53-year-old male presented with a right V4 dissection spanning the origin of the posterior inferior cerebellar artery and associated ruptured V4 IP. The patient was treated with coil-assisted FD. Oral dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was initiated during the procedure, and intravenous tirofiban was used as a bridging agent. Immediate obliteration of the IP was achieved, with near-complete resolution of the dissection within 48 h. The patient made a complete recovery, and angiography at 6 weeks confirmed total IP obliteration, reconstruction of the VA, and a patent stent. The use of FD and DAPT in the setting of acute SAH remains controversial. We believe that coil-assisted FD in carefully selected patients offers significant advantages over traditional microsurgical and endovascular options. The risks posed by DAPT and potential for delayed thrombosis with FD can be effectively mitigated with planning and the development of protocols. We discuss the current literature in the context of our case and review the challenges associated with treating these often devastating lesions.

Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current perspective.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded as a treatment option for severe aortic stenosis throughout the surgical risk spectrum. Decreasing procedural risk and inclusion of lower risk population has shifted the focus to optimization of postprocedural management and balancing the thrombotic and bleeding complications. In this review, we outline various patient and procedure related factors affecting choice of antithrombotic therapy post TAVR and provide an update of recent development in this area. Multiple studies have confirmed the high incidence of both ischemic and bleeding complications in the early to midterm post-TAVR. In addition, new data has emerged for the role of high resolution computed tomography to detect decreased leaflet mobility and leaflet micro thrombi associated with implications for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and cerebrovascular events post TAVR. Randomized clinical trials have reported increased bleeding with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) plus antiplatelet therapy. These findings suggest that aspirin monotherapy or OAC monotherapy likely provides the appropriate balance for antithrombotic protection and risk of bleeding. Majority of patients undergoing TAVR have multiple comorbidities and are at increased risk of ischemic and bleeding complications. In the absence of robust clinical evidence, there is significant variability among guideline recommendations and antithrombotic therapy post TAVR across institutions. The available evidence confirms a high rate of bleeding with more potent and prolonged antithrombotic regimens without a documented benefit for clinical endpoints. The authors favor a conservative anti thrombotic approach and suggest monotherapy with aspirin or systemic anticoagulation based upon an individual's risk of thromboembolic complications. DAPT is reserved for patients with recent stenting and OAC plus aspirin is prescribed for patients with established CAD in the post TAVR setting.

Eptifibatide use following emergent carotid stenting in acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke with tandem occlusion

BackgroundEarly revascularization of the extracranial internal carotid artery in acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke (ACIS) is feasible and may improve clinical outcome. When a stent is deployed, antithrombotic agents should be administered peri-procedurally to ensure stent patency. Our institution implemented a protocol for the use of eptifibatide as a means of maintaining stent patency in the treatment of ACIS associated with cervical internal carotid artery occlusion. MethodsOur internal database was queried for patients who received emergent endovascular therapy (ET) for ACIS with stent placement and eptifibatide administration between July 2016 and 2019. ResultsTwenty nine patients met the study criteria. The etiology was large artery atherosclerosis in 26 cases. Two patients had a dissection (7%), and one had a carotid occlusion related to a recent carotid endarterectomy. Mean NIHSS was 14. Sixteen patients received IVrtPA. Extracranial-intracranial tandem occlusion (TO) was present in 21 of cases. All patients received an eptifibatide bolus followed by an infusion for approximately 24 hours post stent deployment. Head CT was obtained prior to initiation of oral dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. Successful recanalization was achieved in all patients with no evidence of downstream embolization. Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in one patient. Stent occlusion occurred in two patients, only one of which was symptomatic. Favorable clinical outcome with mRS ≤ 2 at 3 months was achieved in seventeen patients. ConclusionsThe use of eptifibatide post procedure was associated with low risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, including in patients treated with rtPA.

Elective carotid stenting after urgent best medical treatment suppresses recurrent stroke in patients with symptomatic carotid artery severe stenosis

ObjectiveUrgent carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for symptomatic advanced carotid artery stenosis is controversial because carry risks of hemorrhagic and thromboembolic complications. As treatments for preventing recurrent stroke have recently advanced, this study evaluated whether elective CAS with urgent best medical therapy reduces recurrent stroke for symptomatic severe carotid artery stenosis. Patients and methodsA total of 131 consecutive patients who underwent CAS for severe stenosis of the carotid artery between 2013–2017 were divided into acute ischemic minor stroke (AIMS) and Asymptomatic groups. The AIMS group comprised 59 patients presenting with minor stroke who underwent elective CAS with oral dual antiplatelet therapy, statin therapy, and add-on oral omega-3 fatty acid ethyl esters from 4 weeks before CAS. The Asymptomatic group comprised 72 patients treated with best medical therapy for 4 weeks before CAS. ResultsNo recurrent ischemic stroke was observed under urgent best medical treatment before elective CAS in the AIMS group. Although the frequency of vulnerable plaque and degree of stenosis were much higher in the AIMS group, no significant differences were seen in perioperative complications. Baseline serum eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) levels and EPA/ arachidonic acid (AA) were significantly lower in the AIMS group (p = 0.04, 0.04, respectively) and serum EPA/AA was significantly increased a day before CAS and 3 months after CAS compared with baseline. ConclusionUrgent best medical treatment reduces recurrent stroke and facilitates safe elective CAS in patients with symptomatic and severe carotid artery stenosis.

Impact of Tirofiban on Serum Troponin Changes in Patients Undergoing Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

The optional periprocedural antithrombotic management for carotid artery stenting (CAS) is still debated. We aimed to compare the procedural and 1-month outlook of patients undergoing CAS with tirofiban as parenteral antiplatelet therapy. We retrospectively compared patients receiving tirofiban during CAS versus those undergoing CAS without tirofiban, using propensity score matching. Ancillary antithrombotic therapy included in all patients aspirin, clopidogrel, and unfractioned heparin. The primary outcome was the change in serum troponin from baseline to postprocedural peak levels. A total of 30 patients undergoing CAS were included, 15 receiving tirofiban on top of heparin and dual oral antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and 15 receiving only heparin and DAPT. Bail-out use of tirofiban was an exclusion criterion. Baseline troponin was 3.00 (0.06; 5.20) ng/mL in the tirofiban group vs. 4.6 (0.02; 13.10) ng/mL in the no-tirofiban group (P=0.229), and postprocedural peak 3.5 (0.06; 5.50) ng/mL vs. 6.30 (0.09; 28.40) ng/mL (P=0.191). Peak-baseline difference in troponin was lower in the tirofiban group than in the no-tirofiban group: 0.3 (0.00; 1.7) ng/mL vs. 1.3 (0.01; 10.00) ng/mL (P=0.044); the relative peak-baseline change in troponin was analogously different: 24.3% (0%; 44.7%) vs. 50% (21.3%; 80.0%) (P=0.039). No case of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack occurred during in-hospital stay or at 1-month follow-up. Tirofiban during CAS might provide periprocedural myocardial protection and reduce myocardial injury as determined by serial troponin measurements.

Safety and Efficacy of Periprocedural Heparin Plus a Short-Term Infusion of Tirofiban Versus Bivalirudin Monotherapy in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Intermountain Heart Institute STAIR Observational Registry)

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, used as a standard intravenous bolus followed by a prolonged infusion for 12 to 18 hours, reduces ischemic complications during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) but often at a cost of increased bleeding. Today, when dual oral antiplatelet therapy is routine, heparin use plus short-term (bolus alone or with a <6 hours infusion) glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, or bivalirudin monotherapy, have been proposed as potentially superior alternatives. This observational study evaluated the safety and efficacy of heparin plus short-term tirofiban versus bivalirudin monotherapy during PCI. Patients with successful PCI and no cardiogenic shock who were anticoagulated with either of the above regimens were followed for 30-day major bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization) at 30 days, 1 year, and long term. A total of 727 patients receiving tirofiban (age = 63 ± 13 years, males = 76%, ACS presentation = 75%, radial access = 51%) and 459 patients receiving bivalirudin, (age = 65 ± 13 years, males = 71%, ACS presentation = 78%, radial access = 18%) were included. Thirty-day major bleeding was 0.7% and 4.1% for tirofiban and bivalirudin, respectively (adjusted odds ratio = 0.17 [0.06, 0.46], p = 0.001). During 30-day, 1-year, and long-term (1.7 ± 0.9 years) follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular events risk did not differ significantly between tirofiban and bivalirudin. However, long-term death was significantly lower in those receiving tirofiban (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.58 [0.34, 1.00], p = 0.05). In conclusion, in this observational study, PCI patients receiving heparin plus short-term tirofiban experienced significantly lower 30-day major bleeding, and improved long-term survival, than those receiving bivalirudin monotherapy.

A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study Comparing Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Abciximab in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Transradial Rescue Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Failed Thrombolysis

The risk and benefit ratio of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors with dual oral antiplatelet therapy after failed thrombolysis and rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. Using a randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind design, we compared intravenous (IV) and intracoronary (IC) abciximab delivery in 74 patients referred for rescue transradial PCI. The primary angiographic end points were the final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow and myocardial blush grades. Secondary end points included acute and 6-month outcomes using angiographic parameters, platelet aggregation parameters, cardiac biomarkers, cardiac magnetic resonance measurements (CMR) and clinical end points. After rescue PCI, normal thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flows were obtained in 70% in the IC group, 48% in the IV group, and 71% in the placebo group, respectively (p = 0.056). Final myocardial blush grades 2 and 3 were obtained in 43% and 39% in the IC group, 48% and 26% in the IV group, and 46% and 42% in the placebo group (p = 0.67), respectively. Acutely, peak release of cardiac biomarkers, necrosis size, myocardial perfusion and no-reflow as assessed by CMR, and clinical end points were similar between the groups and did not suggest a benefit for IC or IV abciximab compared with placebo. There was no increase in bleeding or access site-related complications with abciximab compared with placebo. Clinical, angiographic, and CMR outcomes at 6 months remained comparable between the groups. In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with failed thrombolysis undergoing transradial rescue PCI, IC or IV abciximab had no significant clinical impact.

Ultra-Early Combination Antiplatelet Therapy with Cilostazol for the Prevention of Branch Atheromatous Disease: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Background and Purpose: The optimal use of antiplatelet therapy for intracranial branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is not known. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter, single-group trial of 144 consecutive patients diagnosed with probable BAD. All patients were treated within 12 h of symptom onset to prevent clinical progression using dual antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol plus one oral antiplatelet drug (aspirin or clopidogrel). Endpoints of progressive BAD in the dual therapy group at 2 weeks were compared with a matched historical control group of 142 patients treated with single oral antiplatelet therapy using either cilostazol, aspirin, or clopidogrel. Results: Progressive motor paresis occurred in 14 patients (9.7%) in the aggressive antiplatelet group, compared with 48 (33.8%) in the matched single antiplatelet group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the following variables to be associated with a better prognosis for BAD: baseline modified Rankin Scale score, dual oral antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol, and dyslipidemia (odds ratios of 0.616, 0.445, and 0.297, respectively). Hypertension was associated with a worse prognosis for BAD (odds ratio of 1.955). Conclusions: Our trial showed that clinical progression of BAD was significantly reduced with the administration of ultra-early aggressive combination therapy using cilostazol compared to treatment with antiplatelet monotherapy.

The search for optimal dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI: fine-tuning of initiation and duration

Download the Issue @ a Glance podcast Subscribe to the EHJ Podcast ![Graphic][1] The field of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains extremely active and fruitful, with major advances involving revascularization strategies and techniques including bioabsorbable stents1 and heated debates on when to start and the duration of antithrombotic therapy.2,3 ‘ The Year in Cardiology 2015: Coronary Intervention ’4 by Philippe Gabriel Steg, Paris, France summarizes the advances in 2015 with a particular focus on bleeding and methods to decrease those risks,5–7 for instance by radial access, as well as on newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) and bioresorbable scaffolds. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is further discussed extensively by Gilles Montalescot and colleagues from the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital in Paris, France in the review article ‘ Oral dual antiplatelet therapy: what have we learnt from recent trials? ’8 Indeed, since the publication of the ESC Guidelines on stable coronary disease9 and on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction,10 several trials and registries have been published. The most recent ESC Guidelines on non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) recommend 12 months of DAPT after PCI.11 Nevertheless, both when to start and the optimal duration of DAPT are still very controversial. The benefit–risk ratio of DAPT pre-treatment appears to depend on the type of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the time elapsing to angiography, and the onset of action of the drug. In stable patients undergoing PCI with the latest generation DES, treatment should be for at least 6 months. Shorter courses of therapy may be necessary, if surgery is planned or with concomitant oral anticoagulation. Longer courses of therapy may be reasonable in patients at low bleeding risk who are tolerating DAPT well. For patients with ACS, prolonged DAPT is beneficial and reasonable, if tolerated. Individualized … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

Safety and efficacy of a new prophylactic tirofiban protocol without oral intraoperative antiplatelet therapy for endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms

BackgroundCoil embolization of intracranial aneurysms is being increasingly used; however, thromboembolic events have become a major periprocedural complication.ObjectiveTo determine the safety and efficacy of prophylactic tirofiban in patients with ruptured...

Oral dual antiplatelet therapy: what have we learnt from recent trials?

International guidelines recommend the use of aspirin treatment immediately and indefinitely in coronary patients. The optimal time to start and the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor) have not been clearly established. Recent clinical trials have provided important new information allowing for evidence-based decisions regarding timing of initiation and duration of DAPT. The benefit-to-risk ratio of DAPT pre-treatment appears to depend on the type of acute coronary syndrome, the time until angiography, and the onset of action of the drug. In stable patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with the latest generation drug-eluting stents, patients should be treated for at least ∼6 months. Shorter courses of therapy may be necessary when special conditions occur (e.g. surgery; oral anticoagulation). Longer courses of therapy may be reasonable in patients at low bleeding risk who are tolerating DAPT well. For patients with ACS, prolonged DAPT is beneficial and therefore reasonable as long as the patient is tolerating the therapy. Individualized management of DAPT must be seen as a dynamic prescription with regular re-evaluations of the risk-benefit to the patient according to changes in his/her clinical profile.