Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) combines two antiplatelet agents to decrease the risk of thrombotic complications associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Emerging data about the duration of DAPT is being published continuously. New approaches are trying to balance the time, benefits, and risks for patients taking DAPT for established cardiovascular diseases. Short-term dual DAPT of 3–6 months, or even 1 month in high-bleeding risk patients, is equivalent in terms of efficacy and effectiveness compared to long-term DAPT for patients who experienced percutaneous coronary intervention in an acute coronary syndrome setting. Prolonged DAPT beyond 12 months reduces stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction rates but increases bleeding risk. Extended DAPT does not significantly benefit stable coronary artery disease patients in reducing stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. Ticagrelor and aspirin reduce cardiovascular events in stable coronary artery disease with diabetes but carry a higher bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy duration in atrial fibrillation patients after percutaneous coronary intervention depends on individual characteristics and bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy is crucial for post-coronary artery bypass graft and transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Aspirin (ASA) monotherapy is preferred. Antiplatelet therapy duration in peripheral artery disease depends on the scenario. Adding vorapaxar and cilostazol may benefit secondary prevention and claudication, respectively. Carotid artery disease patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke benefit from antiplatelet therapy and combining ASA and clopidogrel is more effective than ASA alone. The optimal duration of DAPT after carotid artery stenting is uncertain. Resistance to ASA and clopidogrel poses an incremental risk of deleterious cardiovascular events and stroke. The selection and duration of antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease requires careful consideration of both efficacy and safety outcomes. The use of combination therapies may provide added benefits but should be weighed against the risk of bleeding. Further research and clinical trials are needed to optimize antiplatelet treatment in different patient populations and clinical scenarios.

Patients with a clinical indication for aortic valve replacement can either undergo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). There are many different factors that go into determining which type of replacement to undergo, including age, life expectancy, comorbidities, frailty, and patient preference. While both options offer significant benefits to patients in terms of clinical outcomes and quality of life, there is growing interest in expanding the indications for TAVI due to its minimally invasive approach. However, it is worth noting that there are several discrepancies in TAVI outcomes in regards to various endpoints, including death, stroke, and major cardiovascular events. It is unclear why these discrepancies exist, but potential explanations include the diversity of etiologies for aortic stenosis, complex patient comorbidities, and ongoing advancements in both medical therapies and devices. Of these possibilities, we propose that phenotypic variation of aortic stenosis has the most significant impact on post-TAVI clinical outcomes. Such variability in phenotypes is often due to a complex interplay between underlying comorbidities and environmental and inherent patient risk factors. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that patient genetics may also play a role in aortic stenosis pathology. As such, we propose that the selection and management of TAVI patients should emphasize a precision medicine approach.

This case report discusses an unusual presentation of intussusception in an adult patient, which is a condition typically associated with the pediatric population and characterized by telescoping of one segment of the intestine into another. The patient presented with persistent lower abdominal pain, constipation, abdominal distension, and an intermittent palpable mass in the lower left quadrant. The diagnosis of intussusception was made through ultrasound and subsequent colonoscopy, which identified a submucosal mass. Further imaging with contrast-enhanced abdominal tomography revealed displacement of the proximal portion of the descending colon into the distal portion, associated with mesenteric fat displacement and reactive lymph nodes. Laparotomy was performed, and the base of the mass was found to be a lipoma, which was resected. The article highlights that intussusception in adults is rare, with pain being the most frequent symptom. It can occur in different parts of the gastrointestinal tract and is classified based on location and cause. Small intestine intussusceptions are often malignant, while colon adenocarcinoma is the primary cause of colonic invagination.