An electrical storm (ES) is a clinical emergency with a paucity of established treatment options. Despite initial encouraging reports about the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous stellate ganglion block (PSGB), many questions remained unsettled and evidence from a prospective multicentre study was still lacking. For these purposes, the STAR study was designed. This is a multicentre observational study enrolling patients suffering from an ES refractory to standard treatment from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2023. The primary outcome was the reduction of treated arrhythmic events by at least 50% comparing the 12 h following PSGB with the 12 h before the procedure. STAR operators were specifically trained to both the anterior anatomical and the lateral ultrasound-guided approach. A total of 131 patients from 19 centres were enrolled and underwent 184 PSGBs. Patients were mainly male (83.2%) with a median age of 68 (63.8–69.2) years and a depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (25.0 ± 12.3%). The primary outcome was reached in 92% of patients, and the median reduction of arrhythmic episodes between 12 h before and after PSGB was 100% (interquartile range −100% to −92.3%). Arrhythmic episodes requiring treatment were significantly reduced comparing 12 h before the first PSGB with 12 h after the last procedure [six (3–15.8) vs. 0 (0–1), P < .0001] and comparing 1 h before with 1 h after each procedure [2 (0–6) vs. 0 (0–0), P < .001]. One major complication occurred (0.5%). The findings of this large, prospective, multicentre study provide evidence in favour of the effectiveness and safety of PSGB for the treatment of refractory ES. Methods and main findings of the STAR study. ATP, antitachycardia pacing; PSGB, percutaneous stellate ganglion block.

The Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria aims to stratify patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are now recommended by international guidelines to stratify bleeding risk in clinical practice. We searched electronic databases from 2019 (ARC-HBR proposal) up to February 2021 for studies that reported the occurrence of major bleedings according to ARC-HBR status in patients undergoing PCI and pooled them as relative risk (RR) in a random-effect analysis. Only studies that reported events according to the number of times the ARC-HBR definition was met were included in a sensitivity analysis and RR for each stratum was calculated. Nine studies and 68,874 subjects were included in our analysis; 39.2% of them were at HBR and they had a significantly higher risk of major bleedings (RR: 2.70; 95% CI: 2.35-3.10; p < 0.0001). The ARC-HBR definition also had a moderate discriminative power (pooled c-stat: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.61-0.75) while calibration was suboptimal with a tendency toward underpredicting bleeding events (pooled observed:expected ratio: 1.47; 95% CI: 0.82-2.60). Our sensitivity analysis included 5 studies and 46,712 patients and confirmed the incremental, additive power of the ARC-HBR when it is met multiple times. Finally, among baseline characteristics explored, only presenting with an acute coronary syndrome had a significant impact on the ARC-HBR predictive ability. The ARC-HBR definition is a useful clinical tool, but with a tendency towards underpredicting major bleedings and its predictive ability might be optimized by including the number of times the definition is met.

Background In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), current guidelines recommend against combining potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, but the evidence is limited. Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors with clopidogrel in patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI. Methods Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting outcomes according to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor used. Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were the safety endpoints, while the efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor were compared with clopidogrel. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between patients treated with dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) versus triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT). Results Four RCTs that included 10,057 patients were included in this analysis. Potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared with clopidogrel (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.59, p = 0.01; number needed to harm 18, 95% CI 12–36). This finding was consistent regardless of the concomitant antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT; p = 0.69). The risk of MACE did not differ between potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and clopidogrel (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57–1.82). Conclusions In patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI, potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors increase the risk of clinically relevant bleeding compared with clopidogrel, with no evident benefit in terms of MACE reduction.

Aims: Patients with cancer are at higher risk of atrial fibrillation, thromboembolic complications and bleeding events compared with the general population. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of direct oral Xa inhibitor anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation. Methods: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing direct oral Xa inhibitor anticoagulants and warfarin in cancer patients. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. A subgroup analysis was performed to explore the outcome differences between patients with active cancer or history of cancer. Results: Three trials with a total of 3029 cancer patients were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of stroke or systemic embolism [risk ratio (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52–1.10] between the two therapeutic strategies. Direct oral Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the incidence of major bleeding compared with warfarin (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63–0.99; P = 0.04; number needed to treat = 113). These results were consistent both in patients with active cancer and in those with history of cancer. Conclusion: In patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation, direct oral Xa inhibitors have a similar efficacy and may be safer compared with warfarin. These results are consistent both in patients with active cancer and history of cancer.