Aims : To evaluate the impact of an experimental strategy [23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)] vs. a reference regimen (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: In the present post hoc analysis of the Global Leaders trial, the primary endpoint [composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI)] at 2 years was assessed in patients with complex PCI, which includes at least one of the following characteristics: multivessel PCI, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI with ≥2 stents, or total stent length >60 mm. In addition, patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) (composite of all-cause death, any stroke, any MI, or any revascularization) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) [composite of POCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 3 or 5 bleeding] were explored. Among 15 450 patients included in this analysis, 4570 who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischaemic and bleeding events. In patients with complex PCI, the experimental strategy significantly reduced risks of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48–0.85] and POCE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.93), but not in those with non-complex PCI (P interaction = 0.015 and 0.017, respectively). The risk of BARC Type 3 or 5 bleeding was comparable (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.67–1.40), resulting in a significant risk reduction in NACE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.92; P interaction = 0.011). Conclusion : Ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month DAPT could provide a net clinical benefit for patients with complex PCI. However, in view of the overall neutral results of the trial, these findings of a post hoc analysis should be considered as hypothesis generating.

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

OBJECTIVES: The SYNTAX score II (SSII) was developed from the SYNTAX trial to predict the 4-year all-cause mortality after left main or multivessel disease revascularization and to facilitate the decision-making process. The SSII provides the following treatment recommendations: (i) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (equipoise risk), (ii) CABG preferred (excessive risk for PCI) or (iii) PCI preferred (excessive risk for CABG). We sought to externally validate SSII and to investigate the impact of not abiding by the SSII recommendations in the randomized EXCEL trial of PCI versus CABG for left main disease.METHODS: The calibration plot of predicted versus observed 4-year mortality was constructed from individual values of SSII in EXCEL. To assess overestimation versus underestimation of predicted mortality risk, an optimal fit regression line with slope and intercept was determined. Prospective treatment recommendations based on SSII were compared with actual treatments and all-cause mortality at 4 years.RESULTS: SSII variables were available from EXCEL trial in 1807/1905 (95%) patients. For the entire cohort, discrimination was possibly helpful (C statistic = 0.670). SSII-predicted all-cause mortality at 4 years overestimated the observed mortality, particularly in the highest-risk percentiles, as confirmed by the fit regression line [intercept 2.37 (1.51–3.24), P = 0.003; slope 0.67 (0.61–0.74), P < 0.001]. When the SSII-recommended treatment was CABG, randomized EXCEL patients treated with PCI had a trend towards higher mortality compared with those treated with CABG (14.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.07) in the as-treat population. In the intention-to-treat population, patients randomized to PCI had higher mortality compared with those randomized to CABG (15.1% vs 4.1%, P = 0.02), when SSII recommended CABG.CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial of patients with left main disease, the SSII-predicted 4-year mortality overestimated the 4-year observed mortality with a possibly helpful discrimination. Non-compliance with SSII CABG treatment recommendations (i.e. randomized to PCI) was associated with higher 4-year all-cause mortality.

Aims: The Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway provides a framework for holistic care management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aimed to determine the impact of changes in compliance to ABC pathway management on clinical outcomes. Methods and results: This is a prospective multicenter AF registry. Patients with non-valvular AF were enrolled and followed-up for 3 years. Baseline and follow-up compliance to the ABC pathway was assessed. The main outcomes were all-cause death, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and heart failure. There studied 3096 patients (mean age 67.6 ± 11.1 years, 41.8% female). Patients were categorized into four groups: Group 1: ABC compliant at baseline and 1 year [n = 1022 (33.0%)]; Group 2: ABC non-compliant at baseline but compliant at 1 year [n = 307 (9.9%)]; Group 3: ABC compliant at baseline and non-compliant at 1 year [n = 312 (10.1%)]; and Group 4: ABC non-compliant at baseline and also at 1 year [n = 1455 (47.0%)]. The incidence rates [95% confidence intervals (CI)] of the composite outcome for Group 1–4 were 5.56 (4.54–6.74), 7.42 (5.35–10.03), 9.74 (7.31–12.70), and 11.57 (10.28–12.97), respectively. With Group 1 as a reference, Group 2–4 had hazard ratios (95% CI) of the composite outcome of 1.32 (0.92–1.89), 1.75 (1.26–2.43), and 2.07 (1.65–2.59), respectively. Conclusion: Re-evaluation of compliance status of the ABC pathway management is needed to optimize integrated care management and improve clinical outcomes. AF patients who were ABC pathway compliant at baseline and also at follow-up had the best clinical outcomes.

Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because this was not a primary analysis, it should be considered hypothesis generating.