The REAC-TAVI (Assessment of platelet REACtivity after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial enrolled patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) pre-treated with aspirin + clopidogrel, aimed to compare the efficacy of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in suppressing high platelet reactivity (HPR) after TAVI. Current recommendations support short-term use of aspirin + clopidogrel for patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR despite the lack of compelling evidence. This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter investigation. Platelet reactivity was measured at 6 different time points with the VerifyNow assay (Accriva Diagnostics, San Diego, California). HPR was defined as (P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) ≥208. Patients with HPR before TAVR were randomized to either aspirin + ticagrelor or aspirin + clopidogrel for 3 months. Patients without HPR continued with aspirin + clopidogrel (registry cohort). The primary endpoint was non-HPR status (PRU <208) in ≥70% of patients treated with ticagrelor at 90 days post-TAVR. A total of 68 patients were included. Of these, 48 (71%) had HPR (PRU 273 ± 09) and were randomized to aspirin + ticagrelor (n = 24, PRU 277 ± 08) or continued with aspirin + clopidogrel (n = 24, PRU 269 ± 49). The remaining 20 patients (29%) without HPR (PRU 133 ± 12) were included in the registry. Overall, platelet reactivity across all the study time points after TAVR was lower in patients randomized to ticagrelor compared with those treated with clopidogrel, including those enrolled in the registry (p < 0.001). The primary endpoint was achieved in 100% of patients with ticagrelor compared with 21% with clopidogrel (p < 0.001). Interestingly, 33% of clopidogrel responder patients at baseline developed HPR status during the first month after TAVR. HPR to clopidogrel is present in a considerable number of patients with AS undergoing TAVR. Ticagrelor achieves a better and faster effect, providing sustained suppression of HPR to these patients. (Platelet Reactivity After TAVI: A Multicenter Pilot Study [REAC-TAVI]; NCT02224066).

Background: The long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of COVID-19 have not been fully explored. Methods: This was an international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted between February and December 2020. Consecutive patients ≥18 years who underwent a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV2 were included. Patients were classified into two cohorts depending on the nasopharyngeal swab result and clinical status: confirmed COVID-19 (positive RT-PCR) and control (without suggestive symptoms and negative RT-PCR). Data were obtained from electronic records, and clinical follow-up was performed at 1-year. The primary outcome was CV death at 1-year. Secondary outcomes included arterial thrombotic events (ATE), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and serious cardiac arrhythmias. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated events. A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for all baseline characteristics was used for comparing outcomes between groups. A prespecified landmark analysis was performed to assess events during the post-acute phase (31–365 days). Results: A total of 4,427 patients were included: 3,578 (80.8%) in the COVID-19 and 849 (19.2%) control cohorts. At one year, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint of CV death between the COVID-19 and control cohorts (1.4% vs. 0.8%; HR_adj 1.28 [0.56–2.91]; p = 0.555), but there was a higher risk of all-cause death (17.8% vs. 4.0%; HR_adj 2.82 [1.99–4.0]; p = 0.001). COVID-19 cohort had higher rates of ATE (2.5% vs. 0.8%, HR_adj 2.26 [1.02–4.99]; p = 0.044), VTE (3.7% vs. 0.4%, HR_adj 9.33 [2.93–29.70]; p = 0.001), and serious cardiac arrhythmias (2.5% vs. 0.6%, HR_adj 3.37 [1.35–8.46]; p = 0.010). During the post-acute phase, there were no significant differences in CV death (0.6% vs. 0.7%; HR_adj 0.67 [0.25–1.80]; p = 0.425), but there was a higher risk of deep vein thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.0%; p = 0.028). Re-hospitalization rate was lower in the COVID-19 cohort compared to the control cohort (13.9% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusions: At 1-year, patients with COVID-19 experienced an increased risk of all-cause death and adverse CV events, including ATE, VTE, and serious cardiac arrhythmias, but not CV death. Study registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04359927.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common chronic condition in the elderly. However, the earlier CAD begins, the stronger its impact on lifestyle and costs of health and social care. The present study analyzes clinical and angiographic features and the outcome of very young patients undergoing coronary angiography due to suspected CAD, including a nested case-control study of ≤40-year-old patients referred for coronary angiography. Patients were divided into two groups: cases with significant angiographic stenosis, and controls with non-significant stenosis. Of the 19,321 coronary angiographies performed in our center in a period of 10 years, 504 (2.6%) were in patients ≤40 years. The most common cardiovascular risk factors for significant CAD were smoking (OR 2.96; 95% CI 1.65–5.37), dyslipidemia (OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.27–3.82), and family history of CAD (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.05–3.75). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up was significantly higher in the cases compared to controls (HR 2.71; 95% CI 1.44–5.11). Three conventional coronary risk factors were directly related to the early signs of CAD. MACE in the long-term follow-up is associated to dyslipidaemia and hypertriglyceridemia. Focusing efforts for the adequate control of CAD in young patients is a priority given the high socio-medical cost that this disease entails to society.

To investigate clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using a sirolimus-eluting stent with bioresorbable polymer, Ultimaster (BP-SES) compared with a permanent polymer everolimus-eluting stent, Xience (PP-EES) in patients with high risk (ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) acute coronary syndromes (ACS) enrolled in the CENTURY II trial. CENTURY II is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single blind, controlled trial comparing BP-SES and PP-EES, with primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 9month post-stent implantation. Out of 1123 patients enrolled in CENTURY II trial, 264 high risk ACS patients were included in this subgroup analysis, and the clinical outcomes including target lesion failure (TLF), target vessel failure (TVF), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were evaluated at 24months. The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were similar between two groups. At 24months, TLF occurred in 6.3% of patients receiving a BP-SES and 6.5% of patients receiving a PP-EES (P=0.95); TVF was 6.3% in patients receiving a BP-SES and 9.4% in patients receiving a PP-EES (P=0.36). There were no significant differences in cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis rate. BP-SES achieved similar safety and efficacy outcomes as PP-EES in this ACS subgroup of CENTURY II study, at 24-month follow-up. This finding is hypothesis-generating and needs to be confirmed in larger trials with longer follow-up.

Background: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. Methods: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure—a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). Results: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, −1.87 to 2.5]; P _{non inferiority} =0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46–1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non–clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. Conclusions: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.