Explore the vast range of titles available.

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy.P2Y12 receptor antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor)For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).WarfarinThe advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC)For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30–50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Reperfusion strategies with fibrinolysis or primary PCI were compared in this trial involving patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The two methods had similar efficacy, but there was more intracranial bleeding in the fibrinolysis group. Although contemporary guidelines for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as the preferred reperfusion strategy, this approach is contingent on performing PCI in a timely fashion. 1 , 2 Since most patients do not present to a PCI-capable hospital, this factor presents a major logistic challenge in many regions. 3 Despite substantial effort directed toward addressing this issue, the large majority of patients with STEMI who present to non-PCI facilities do not subsequently receive primary PCI within guideline-recommended times. 4 This delay results in a commensurate increase in morbidity and mortality. 5 , 6 A second major therapeutic . . .

Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57–73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74–1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62–1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75–1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61–0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91–3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37–8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Infarct size after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with long-term clinical outcomes. However, there is insufficient information correlating creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) or troponin levels to infarct size and infarct location in first-time occurrence of STEMI. We, therefore, assessed the utility of CK-MB measurements after primary percutaneous coronary intervention of a first anterior STEMI using bivalirudin anticoagulation in patients who were randomized to intralesion abciximab versus no abciximab and to manual thrombus aspiration versus no aspiration. Infarct size (as a percentage of total left ventricular [LV] mass) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 30 days and correlated to peak CK-MB. Peak CK-MB (median 240 IU/L; interquartile range 126 to 414) was significantly associated with infarct size and with LVEF (r = 0.67, p <0.001; r = −0.56, p <0.001, respectively). A large infarct size (greater than or equal the median, defined as 17% of total LV mass) and LVEF ≤40% were more common in the highest peak CK-MB tertile group than in the other tertiles (87.6% vs 49.5% vs 9.1%, p <0.001; 43.2% vs 14.0% vs 4.6%, p <0.001, respectively). Peak CK-MB of at least 300 IU/L predicted with moderate accuracy both a large infarct size (area under the curve 0.88) and an LVEF ≤40% (area under the curve 0.78). Furthermore, CK-MB was an independent predictor of 1-year major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 1.42 per each additional 100 IU/L [1.20 to 1.67], p <0.001). In conclusion, CK-MB measurement is useful in estimating infarct size and LVEF and in predicting 1-year clinical outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for first anterior STEMI.

In the past ten years, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has replaced thrombolysis as the revascularisation strategy for many patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, delivery of primary PCI within evidence-based timeframes is challenging, and health-care provision varies substantially worldwide. Consequently, even with the ideal circumstances of rapid initial diagnosis, long transfer delays to the catheter laboratory can occur. These delays are detrimental to outcomes for patients and can be exaggerated by variations in timing of patients' presentation and diagnosis. In this Series paper we summarise the value of immediate out-of-hospital thrombolysis for STEMI, and reconsider the potential therapeutic interface with a contemporary service for primary PCI. We review recent trial data, and explore opportunities for optimisation of STEMI outcomes with a pharmacoinvasive approach.

Sirolimus-eluting stents have been developed to prevent restenosis in the treatment of coronary artery disease. We investigated the risk of restenosis with use of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents to assess possible differences. We enrolled 352 patients in whom one coronary artery required treatment, with diameter 2·5–3·0 mm and lesion length 15–32 mm. We randomly assigned patients sirolimus-eluting stents (n=175) or bare-metal stents (control, n=177). At 8 months we assessed differences in minimum lumen diameter and binary restenosis within the lesion (restenosis of ≤50% diameter, including 5 mm vessel segments proximal and distal to stented segment). Patients were also followed up for 9 months for major adverse cardiac events. Analysis was by intention to treat. Stent implantation was successful in 100% of sirolimus-stent patients and 99·4% of controls. The mean diameter of treated coronary arteries was 2·55 mm (SD 0·37) and mean lesion length was 15·0 mm (6·0). Multiple stents were implanted in 170 (48%) patients. At 8 months, minimum lumen diameter was significantly higher with sirolimus-eluting stents than with control stents (2·22 vs 1·33 mm, p<0·0001). The rate of binary restenosis was significantly reduced with sirolimus-eluting stents compared with control stents (5·9 vs 42·3%, p=0·0001). Significantly fewer patients with sirolimus-eluting stents had major adverse cardiac events at 9 months than did controls (8·0 vs 22·6%, p=0·0002), due mainly to a lower need for target-lesion revascularisations (4·0 vs 20·9%, p<0·0001). Sirolimus-eluting stents are better than bare-metal stents for treatment of single long atherosclerotic lesions in a coronary vessel smaller than 3 mm in diameter. Published online Sept 30, 2003. http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art9099web.pdf

Current guidelines recommend against revascularization of the noninfarct artery during the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This was based largely on observational studies with few data coming from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recently, several small-to-moderate sized RCTs have provided data, suggesting that a multivessel revascularization approach may be appropriate. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV PCI) versus culprit vessel–only revascularization (COR) during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVCD). We searched Medline, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing MV PCI versus COR in patients with STEMI and MVCD. The incidence of all-cause death, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization during follow-up were extracted. Four RCTs fit our primary selection criteria. Among these, 566 patients underwent MV PCI (either at the time of the primary PCI or as a staged procedure) and 478 patients underwent COR. During long-term follow-up (range 1 to 2.5 years), combined data indicated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02) and in cardiac death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.73, p = 0.004) with MV PCI. In addition, there was a significantly lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75; p = 0.004) and future revascularization (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52; p <0.00001). In conclusion, from the RCT data, MV PCI appears to improve outcomes in patients with STEMI and MVCD.

ObjectiveTo investigate whether a very early invasive strategy (IS)±revascularisation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care IS in higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).MethodsMulticentre, randomised, controlled, pragmatic strategy trial of higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS, defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score of ≥118, or ≥90 with at least one additional high-risk feature. Participants were randomly assigned to very early IS±revascularisation (<90 min from randomisation) or standard care IS±revascularisation (<72 hours). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.ResultsThe trial was discontinued early by the funder due to slow recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. 425 patients were randomised, of whom 413 underwent an IS: 204 to very early IS (median time from randomisation: 1.5 hours (IQR: 0.9–2.0)) and 209 to standard care IS (median: 44.0 hours (IQR: 22.9–72.6)). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the early IS (5.9%) and standard IS (6.7%) groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.09; p=0.86). The incidence of stroke and major bleeding was similar. The length of hospital stay was reduced with a very early IS (3.9 days (SD 6.5) vs 6.3 days (SD 7.6), p<0.01).ConclusionsA strategy of very early IS did not improve clinical outcomes compared with a standard care IS in higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS. However, the primary outcome rate was low and the trial was underpowered to detect such a difference.Trial registration numberNCT03707314.

In The Lancet, Olivier Varenne and colleagues 6 investigate use of a new thin-strut DES versus BMS in elderly patients (>=75 years) with a tailored curtailed antiplatelet approach in the SENIOR trial. DAPT was discontinued at 1 month in stable patients and at 6 months in patients with acute coronary syndrome regardless of having received either DES or BSM.

Although a fibrinolytic pharmacoinvasive strategy is recommended for patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) unable to undergo timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), there are limited data addressing outcomes specific to those with successful or unsuccessful pharmacologic reperfusions. Accordingly, we evaluated a contemporary pharmacoinvasive strategy for failed and successful reperfusions within the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial infarction study. Of 1,823 per-protocol–treated patients with STEMI, we examined clinical outcomes and angiographic and electrocardiographic metrics in 3 groups as follows: fibrinolysis requiring rescue (rescue, n = 348), fibrinolysis with scheduled angiography (scheduled, n = 516), and primary PCI (n = 927). Compared with pharmacoinvasive patients undergoing scheduled angiography, rescue patients were more likely to have anterior wall myocardial infarction, more baseline ST-segment elevation and deviation, as well as Q waves in the distribution of their ST elevation. Residual ST elevation ≥2 mm 30 minutes after angiography occurred in 27.9%, 7.9%, and 24.8% of patients who underwent rescue, scheduled, and primary PCI, respectively. Thirty-day composite event rates (all-cause death, cardiogenic shock, heart failure, and reinfarction) were 18.7%, 5.5%, and 13.9%; all-cause death: 6.1%, 2.1%, and 3.9%; cardiogenic shock: 7.5%, 2.0%, and 5.4%; heart failure: 11.8%, 2.3%, and 7.6%; and reinfarction: 1.5%, 1.4%, and 2.2%, for rescue, scheduled, and primary PCI, respectively. Compared with successfully reperfused patients undergoing scheduled angiography, the adjusted relative risk of the primary outcome was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 1.92 to 4.45) in rescue patients. In conclusion, pharmacoinvasive-treated patients requiring rescue angiography had greater baseline risk with more co-morbidities and worse 30-day outcomes compared with successful fibrinolytic-treated patients. Residual ST elevation after reperfusion assists in defining prognosis.