BackgroundEarly aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can... Show moreBackgroundEarly aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI.MethodsThe LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelettherapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT.ConclusionsThe LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS. Show less
Background and ObjectivesCOVID-19-related inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk and lower the efficacy of revascularization treatments in patients... Show moreBackground and ObjectivesCOVID-19-related inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk and lower the efficacy of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of revascularization treatments in patients with AIS and COVID-19.MethodsThis was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients with AIS receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular treatment (EVT) between March 2020 and June 2021 tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. With a doubly robust model combining propensity score weighting and multivariate regression, we studied the association of COVID-19 with intracranial bleeding complications and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to treatment groups (IVT-only and EVT).ResultsOf a total of 15,128 included patients from 105 centers, 853 (5.6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; of those, 5,848 (38.7%) patients received IVT-only and 9,280 (61.3%) EVT (with or without IVT). Patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.16-2.01), symptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SSAH) (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.69), SICH and/or SSAH combined (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.23-1.99), 24-hour mortality (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.58-3.86), and 3-month mortality (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.52-2.33). Patients with COVID-19 also had an unfavorable shift in the distribution of the modified Rankin score at 3 months (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.60).DiscussionPatients with AIS and COVID-19 showed higher rates of intracranial bleeding complications and worse clinical outcomes after revascularization treatments than contemporaneous non-COVID-19 patients receiving treatment. Current available data do not allow direct conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of revascularization treatments in patients with COVID-19 or to establish different treatment recommendations in this subgroup of patients with ischemic stroke. Our findings can be taken into consideration for treatment decisions, patient monitoring, and establishing prognosis. Show less
Buijs, D.M.F. van den; Wilgenhof, A.; Knaapen, P.; Zivelonghi, C.; Meijers, T.; Vermeersch, P.; ... ; Brink, F.S. van den 2022
Objectives. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal... Show moreObjectives. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods. In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p=0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p=0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p=0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p=0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p=0.09). Conclusions. In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome. Show less
