What Are Optimal P2Y12 Inhibitor and Schedule of Administration in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael V. Cohen ◽  
James M. Downey
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Platelet Reactivity ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Metabolic Activation ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Myocardial Salvage ◽  
Require Time ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Oral Agents

Guidelines recommend treatment with a P2Y12 platelet adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor in patients undergoing elective or urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but the optimal agent or timing of administration is still not clearly specified. The P2Y12 inhibitor was initially used for its platelet anti-aggregatory action to block thrombosis of the recanalized coronary artery or deployed stent. It is now recognized that these agents also offer potent cardioprotection against a reperfusion injury that occurs in the first minutes of reperfusion if platelet aggregation is blocked at the time of reperfusion. But this is difficult to achieve with oral agents which are slowly absorbed and often require time-consuming metabolic activation. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who usually have a large mass of myocardium at risk of infarction seldom have sufficient time for upstream-administered oral agents to achieve a therapeutic P2Y12 level of inhibition by the time of balloon inflation. However, optimal treatment could be assured by initiating an IV cangrelor infusion shortly prior to stenting followed by subsequent post-PCI transition to an oral agent, that is, ticagrelor, once success of the recanalization and absence of need for surgical intervention are confirmed. Not only should this sequence provide optimal protection against infarction, it should also negate bleeding if coronary artery bypass grafting should be required since stopping the cangrelor infusion at any time will quickly restore platelet reactivity. It is anticipated that cangrelor-induced myocardial salvage will help preserve myocardial function and significantly diminish postinfarction heart failure.

Abstract 16231: Long-term Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-st Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiro Barssoum ◽  
Ashish Kumar ◽  
Devesh Rai ◽  
Adnan Kharsa ◽  
Medhat Chowdhury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
St Elevation

Background: Long term outcomes of culprit multi-vessel and left main patients who presented with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and underwent either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not well defined. Randomized trials comparing the two modalities constituted mainly of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD). We performed a meta-analysis of studies that compared the long term outcomes of CABG vs. PCI in NSTE-ACS. Methods: Medline, EmCare, CINAHL, Cochrane databases were queried for relevant articles. Studies that included patients with SCAD and ST-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Our primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 3-5 years, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, re-infarction and repeat revascularization. The secondary outcome was re-infarction at 3 to 5 years. We used the Paule-Mandel method with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin’s I 2 statistics. All statistical analysis was carried out using R version 3.6.2 Results: Four observational studies met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 6695 patients. At 3 to 5 years, the PCI group was associated with a higher risk of MACE as compared to CABG, (RR): 1.52, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.81, I 2 =0% (PANEL A). The PCI group also had a higher risk of re-infarctions during the period of follow up, RR: 1.88, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.38, I 2 =0% (PANEL B). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, CABG was associated with a lower risk of MACE and re-infarctions as compared to PCI during 3 to 5 years follow up period.

Abstract 1849: Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease in Octogenarians

Circulation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (suppl_16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan DeBlois ◽  
Pierre Voisine ◽  
Olivier F Bertrand ◽  
Siamak Mohammadi ◽  
Gerald Barbeau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Cerebrovascular Event ◽  
Left Main ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background: Very little data exists regarding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as an alternative to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) for the treatment of unprotected left main disease (LMD) in octogenarians, and no studies to date have compared CABG and PCI for the treatment of LMD in this population. The objectives of our study were to compare the acute and midterm follow-up results of PCI and CABG for the treatment of significant LMD in octogenarians. Methods: A total of 163 consecutive patients ≥80 years old diagnosed with LMD have undergone coronary revascularization in our center between 2002 and 2006. One hundred and one patients underwent CABG and 62 patients had PCI (non-surgical candidates: 30%, very high surgical risk patients: 61%, patient refusal of CABG: 9%). All complications occurring within the first 30 days following the procedure were recorded, and major adverse cardiovascular events -MACCE- (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event, revascularization) were evaluated at follow-up. Results: Patients who underwent PCI were older (85 ± 3 yrs vs. 82 ± 2 yrs, p<0.0001), presented more frequently with an acute coronary syndrome (92% vs. 50%, p<0.0001), and had a higher EuroSCORE (9.5 ± 2.7 vs. 8.5 ± 2.5, p=0.01). Drug-eluting stents were used in 48% of PCI patients. There were no significant differences in the incidence of MACCE at 30 days between groups (CABG: 28%, PCI: 19%, p=0.22), but the CABG group was associated with a higher rate of atrial fibrillation (48% vs. 14%, p<0.0001) and acute renal failure (17% vs. 6%, p=0.05). The incidence of MACCE occurring between 30 days and 24 ± 17 months follow-up was higher in the PCI group (32% vs. 13%, p=0.005), but the cumulative incidence of MACCE was similar in both groups (CABG 39% vs. PCI 44%, p=0.53). Conclusions: PCI was associated with a 30-day cardiac event rate similar to that of CABG for the treatment of unprotected LMD in octogenarians. Surgical patients experienced fewer cardiac events during the follow-up period, but the cardiovascular event-free survival rate was similar between groups at 2-year follow-up. Further randomized studies with longer-term follow-up comparing both revascularization strategies in this high risk coronary population are warranted.

Abstract 16260: Thirty Days Major Adverse Cardiac Events Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ste-acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis With Meta-regression

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiro Barssoum ◽  
Ashish Kumar ◽  
Devesh Rai ◽  
Adnan Kharsa ◽  
Medhat Chowdhury ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Adverse Cardiac Events ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis

Background: The optimum revascularization modality in multi-vessel and left main disease patients presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (non-STE-ACS) is not well studied. The current recommendations are based on studies that primarily included patients with stable angina. Patients with non-STE-ACS were under-represented in clinical trials. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in non-STE-ACS, and reporting 30 days major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Methods: We searched Medline, EmCare, CINAHL, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar for relevant articles. We excluded studies that included patients with stable coronary artery disease and ST elevation myocardial infarction. Our primary outcome was 30 days MACE defined as all-cause death, stroke, repeat revascularization and re-infarction. We used the Paule-Mandel method with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using Higgin’s I 2 statistics. To account for heterogeneity, a meta-regression analysis was performed. Results: Five observational studies met our inclusion criteria summing to a total number of 7161 patients. At 30 days, there was no difference between CABG vs. PCI in terms of MACE, RR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.39, I 2 = 81% (Panel A). A meta-regression analysis reported that a history of PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE with CABG compared to PCI (Panel B). Conclusion: At 30 days, there was no difference in MACE between the CABG and PCI groups. However, a history of PCI was associated with a lower risk of MACE in patients who underwent CABG.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piroze M Davierwala ◽  
Friedrich W Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Graft ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Artery Bypass Graft ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

The surgical management of acute coronary syndrome still remains a challenge for the cardiac surgeon. Although most patients can be managed by percutaneous coronary intervention, for patients with complex multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (high SYNTAX score), in whom percutaneous coronary intervention is not possible or is unsuccessful, urgent or emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery is the only available option. It is very important for surgeons to determine the optimum timing of surgical intervention, which is usually based on the clinical presentation, coronary anatomy, and biomarkers. Surgeons should be conversant with the different operative techniques, whether off- or on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery, that would help in achieving the best possible outcomes in such situations. Early and late survival of patients depends not only on an efficiently executed operation, but also on the competency of the post-operative care delivered. Modern perioperative management is reinforced by the availability of a variety of mechanical cardiopulmonary assist devices, like the intra-aortic balloon pump, the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and an array of ventricular assist devices, which aid us in managing very sick patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. The results of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for acute coronary syndrome, as published in the literature, vary significantly, because of the heterogeneity of patient populations, operative timing, and haemodynamic status, making a comparison of surgical outcomes almost impossible. Only one randomized trial has been conducted to that effect, to date. A heart team approach, involving an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon, is mandatory to determine the best treatment strategy and achieve the best possible outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

scholarly journals Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Salvages a Patient with Recurrent Acute Coronary Syndrome and Ischaemic Heart Failure with Multiple Life Threatening Co-morbidities: A Case Report

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brajesh Kunwar ◽  
Farah Ingle ◽  
Atul Ingle ◽  
Chandrasekhar Tulagseri
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Vascular Diseases ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Artery Disease

More than 422 million people are suffering from Diabetes Mellitus (DM) worldwide. Majority of the affected population resides in lower and middle income countries. This chronic, metabolic disease gradually does serious damage to heart, blood vessels, eyes, kidneys and nerves; eventually causing cardiovascular diseases, peripheral vascular diseases, retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy. Here, a rare case of a 58-year-old male was present who had history of uncontrolled DM with dry gangrene in right forefoot, acute kidney injury and Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) involving Left Main (LM) bifurcation presented with recurrent acute coronary syndrome with heart failure. Patient in view of multiple co-morbidities was unfit for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) was managed successfully with complex coronary intervention involving LM bifurcation.

scholarly journals Timing of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a problem of coronary artery bypass grafting accessibility for patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 3812
Author(s):  
T. S. Golovina ◽  
Yu. N. Neverova ◽  
R. S. Tarasov
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

The feasibility of dual antiplatelet therapy as early as possible in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, where percutaneous coronary intervention is recommended, has been proven: it improves treatment outcomes by reducing the risk of adverse ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction.This article provides a detailed analysis of the evidence data and current recommendations on the validity and timing of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome. The emphasis is made on the controversy regarding the early dual antiplatelet therapy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The rationale for using dual antiplatelet therapy only after coronary angiography and determining the revascularization strategy is described, which should increase the accessibility of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document