Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is effective in older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, while the indication has recently broadened to younger patients at lower risk. Although thromboembolic and bleeding complications after TAVI have decreased over time, such adverse events are still common. The recommendations of the latest 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease on antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing TAVI are mostly based on expert opinion. Based on recent studies and randomized controlled trials, this viewpoint document provides updated therapeutic insights in antithrombotic treatment during and after TAVI.

BACKGROUND: Graft patency is the postulated mechanism for the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, systematic graft imaging assessment after CABG is rare, and there is a lack of contemporary data on the factors associated with graft failure and on the association between graft failure and clinical events after CABG. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized clinical trials with systematic CABG graft imaging to assess the incidence of graft failure and its association with clinical risk factors. The primary outcome was the composite of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring after CABG and before imaging. A 2-stage meta-analytic approach was used to evaluate the association between graft failure and the primary outcome. We also assessed the association between graft failure and myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, or all-cause death occurring after imaging. RESULTS: Seven trials were included comprising 4413 patients (mean age, 64.4±9.1 years; 777 [17.6%] women; 3636 [82.4%] men) and 13 163 grafts (8740 saphenous vein grafts and 4423 arterial grafts). The median time to imaging was 1.02 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1.00–1.03). Graft failure occurred in 1487 (33.7%) patients and in 2190 (16.6%) grafts. Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.08 [per 10-year increment] [95% CI, 1.01–1.15]; P =0.03), female sex (aOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.08–1.50]; P =0.004), and smoking (aOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.04–1.38]; P =0.01) were independently associated with graft failure, whereas statins were associated with a protective effect (aOR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.63–0.88]; P <0.001). Graft failure was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring between CABG and imaging assessment (8.0% in patients with graft failure versus 1.7% in patients without graft failure; aOR, 3.98 [95% CI, 3.54–4.47]; P <0.001). Graft failure was also associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization occurring after imaging (7.8% versus 2.0%; aOR, 2.59 [95% CI, 1.86–3.62]; P <0.001). All-cause death after imaging occurred more frequently in patients with graft failure compared with patients without graft failure (11.0% versus 2.1%; aOR, 2.79 [95% CI, 2.01–3.89]; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, graft failure remains common among patients undergoing CABG and is strongly associated with adverse cardiac events.

BACKGROUND: Accurate bleeding risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention is important for treatment individualization. However, there is still an unmet need for a more precise and standardized identification of patients at high bleeding risk. We derived and validated a novel bleeding risk score by augmenting the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria. METHODS: The derivation cohort comprised 29 188 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, of whom 1136 (3.9%) had Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 year, from 4 contemporary real-world registries and the XIENCE V USA trial. The PRECISE-DAPT score was refitted with a Fine-Gray model in the derivation cohort and extended with the ARC-HBR criteria. The primary outcome was BARC 3 or 5 bleeding within 1 year. Independent predictors of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding were selected at multivariable analysis ( P <0.01). The discrimination of the score was internally assessed with apparent validation and cross-validation. The score was externally validated in 4578 patients from the MASTER DAPT trial (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen) and 5970 patients from the STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy-2) total cohort. RESULTS: The PRECISE-HBR score (age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, previous bleeding, oral anticoagulation, and ARC-HBR criteria) showed an area under the curve (AUC) for 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71–0.74) at apparent validation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70–0.73) at cross-validation, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68–0.80) in MASTER DAPT, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66–0.79) in STOPDAPT-2, with superior discrimination compared with PRECISE-DAPT (cross-validation: ΔAUC, 0.01; P =0.02; MASTER DAPT: ΔAUC, 0.05; P =0.004; STOPDAPT-2: ΔAUC, 0.02; P =0.20) and other risk scores. In the derivation cohort, a cutoff of 23 points identified 11 414 patients (39.1%) with a 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk ≥4%. An alternative version of the score, including acute myocardial infarction on admission instead of white blood cell count, showed similar predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE-HBR score is a contemporary, simple 7-item risk score to predict bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention, offering a moderate improvement in discrimination over multiple existing scores. Further evaluation is required to assess its impact on clinical practice.