OBJECTIVE: In this study a systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of non-pharmacological interventions on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature databases up to November 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using R software (version 4.3.2).
RESULTS: Eighteen randomized studies, involving 2,898 participants, were included. Of these, 16 studies with 2,697 participants provided quantitative data. Non-pharmacological interventions (education, exercise, and comprehensive) significantly reduced the risk of angina, heart failure, myocardial infarction, restenosis, cardiovascular-related readmission, and cardiovascular-related death. The subgroup meta-analysis showed that combined interventions were effective in reducing the occurrence of myocardial infarction (MI), and individual and group-based interventions had significant effects on reducing the occurrence of MACE. In interventions lasting seven months or longer, occurrence of decreased by 0.16 times, and mortality related to cardiovascular disease decreased by 0.44 times, showing that interventions lasting seven months or more were more effective in reducing MI and cardiovascular disease-related mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in patients undergoing PCI and validate their short- and long-term effects. This systematic review underscores the potential of non-pharmacological interventions in decreasing the incidence of MACE and highlights the importance of continued research in this area (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023462690).

BACKGROUND: Regionalisation and organised pathways of care using specialist centre hospitals can improve outcomes for critically ill patients. Cardiac arrest centre hospitals (CAC) may optimise the delivery of post-resuscitation care. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) has called for a review of the current evidence base.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of cardiac arrest centres for patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest.
METHODS: Articles were included if they met the prospectively registered (PROSPERO) inclusion criteria. These followed the PICOST framework for ILCOR systematic reviews. A strict definition for a CAC was used, reflecting current position statements and clinical practice. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched using pre-determined criteria from inception to 31 December 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane\'s Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE approach. Substantial heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and a narrative synthesis with visualisation of effect estimates in forest plots was performed.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies met eligibility criteria, including data on over 145,000 patients. One was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) at low risk of bias and the remainder were observational studies, all at moderate or serious risk of bias. All studies included adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. One study used initial shockable rhythm as an inclusion criterion and most studies (n=12) included patients regardless of prehospital ROSC status. Two studies, including the RCT, excluded patients with ST elevation. Survival to hospital discharge with a favourable neurological outcome was reported by 11 studies and favoured CAC care in all observational studies, but the RCT showed no difference. Survival to 30 days with a favourable neurological outcome was reported by two observational studies and favoured CAC care in both. Survival to hospital discharge was reported by 13 observational studies and generally favoured CAC care. Survival to 30 days was reported by two studies, where the observational study favoured CAC care, but the RCT showed no difference.
CONCLUSIONS: This review supports a weak recommendation that adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are cared for at CACs based on very low certainty of evidence. Randomised evidence has not confirmed the benefits of CACs found in observational studies, however this RCT was a single trial in a very specific setting and a population without ST elevation on post-ROSC ECG. The role of CACs in shockable and non-shockable subgroups, direct versus secondary transfer, as well as the impact of increased transport time and bypassing local hospitals remains unclear.

UNASSIGNED: Iatrogenic left main coronary artery (LMCA) dissection resulting from cardiac surgery is a rare complication. Its early detection is challenging and often poses a significant threat to the patient\'s life. However, evidence regarding the most effective management strategy for this condition remains limited at present.
UNASSIGNED: We present a case of 65-year-old female patient who developed cardiogenic shock after mechanical aortic valve replacement surgery associated acute myocardial infraction. Despite concurrent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, the patient\'s condition remained unimproved. Subsequent coronary angiography revealed extensive LMCA dissection involving the left circumflex (LCx) artery. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) led to an immediate improvement in hemodynamic status. The patient was successfully discharged after 22 days of treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Iatrogenic LMCA dissection is an uncommon complication following cardiac surgery. It can manifest in a variety of ways, including as incidental findings, cardiogenic shock or sudden cardiac arrest. The precise prevalence rates of causes linked to cardiac surgery remain largely unknown due to the scarcity of reported cases and the absence of research on this issue. Currently, a definitive management strategy for this condition has not been established. However, previous reported clinical cases provide insight that CABG could be considered if coronary artery dissection is detected during cardiac surgery. Upon postoperative identification, diagnostic coronary angiography and PCI may be feasible alternatives.

The CorPath GRX system (Corindus) was approved in 2018, enabling the first robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Japan. The approval was based on the results of clinical studies from other countries conducted with the first-generation CorPath 200 system (Corindus). Considering no proven use of a remote control device for PCI in Japan, confirming the efficacy and safety of the CorPath GRX system in Japanese real-world clinical practice through a use-results survey was deemed necessary. One condition for approval was that necessary measures should be taken to ensure that the product is used by appropriate operators and facilities. These measures included the dissemination of guidelines for proper use developed in conjunction with related academic societies and the implementation of training courses. The survey results confirmed that the CorPath GRX system is effective and safe. However, some characteristics of the implementation procedure differed from those reported in clinical studies from other countries. This review demonstrates that collecting real-world data is useful for understanding product safety and efficacy, and for identifying issues for future product improvement.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD), complete revascularization (CR) improves prognosis. This meta-analysis, summarizing recent RCTs, contrasts short-term and long-term clinical outcomes between immediate complete revascularization (ICR) and staged complete revascularization (SCR).
METHODS: We systematically searched the online database and eight RCTs were involved. The primary outcomes included long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, re-infarction, combined cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause death, CV death, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). The secondary outcomes were 1-month unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, re-infarction, all-cause death, and CV death. Safety endpoints included stent thrombosis and major bleeding.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs comprising 5198 patients were involved. ICR reduced long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51-0.81, p < 0.001), combined CV death or MI (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78, p = 0.002), and re-infarction (RR 0.66,95% CI 0.48 to 0.91, p = 0.012) compared with SCR. ICR also decreased 1-month unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (RR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, p = 0.006) and re-infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI:0.15-0.74, p = 0.007) but increased 1-month all-cause death (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.06-4.65, p = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients with MVD, we first found that ICR significantly lowered the risk of both short-term and long-term unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization and re-infarction, as well as the long-term composite outcome of CV death or MI compared with SCR. However, there may be an increase in 1-month all-cause death in the ICR group.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.
METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083).
RESULTS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

BACKGROUND: Despite a large body of evidence supporting the use of intravascular imaging (IVI) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), concerns exist about its universal recommendation. The selective use of IVI to guide PCI of complex lesions and patients is perceived as a rational approach.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane were systematically searched for RCTs that compared IVI-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI in high-risk patients and complex coronary anatomies. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: A total of 15 RCTs with 14,109 patients were included and followed for a weighted mean duration of 15.8 months. IVI-guided PCI was associated with a decrease in the risk of MACE (RR: 0.65; 95 % CI: 0.56-0.77; p < 0.01), target vessel failure (TVF) (RR: 0.66; 95 % CI: 0.52-0.84; p < 0.01), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.55-0.91; p < 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.34-0.65; p < 0.01), stent thrombosis (RR: 0.55; 95 % CI: 0.38-0.79; p < 0.01), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.81; 95 % CI: 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), and repeated revascularizations (RR: 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.58-0.85; p < 0.01) compared with angiography. There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications (RR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.42; p = 0.84) between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with angiographic guidance alone, IVI-guided PCI of complex lesions and high-risk patients significantly reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, MACE, TVF, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy following adequate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to September 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness or safety of clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy following DAPT in patients with ACS who received a drug-eluting stent were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to compare risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and clinically relevant bleeding.
RESULTS: Of 6242 abstracts identified, three unique studies were included: one RCT and two retrospective cohort studies. Studies included a total of 7081 post-percutaneous coronary intervention ACS patients, 4260 of whom received aspirin monotherapy and 2821 received clopidogrel monotherapy. Studies included variable proportions of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, and unstable angina. From the meta-analysis, clopidogrel was associated with a 28% reduction in the risk of MACE compared with aspirin (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54, 0.98), with no significant difference in clinically relevant bleeding (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.24).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of published evidence on the effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with ACS post-drug-eluting stent implantation, this meta-analysis suggests that clopidogrel versus aspirin may result in a lower risk of MACE, with a similar risk of major bleeding. The present results are hypothesis-generating and further large RCTs comparing antiplatelet monotherapy options in ACS patients are warranted.

Despite significant goals achieved in diagnosis and treatment in recent decades, coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a high mortality entity and continues to pose substantial challenges to healthcare systems globally. After the latest guidelines, novel data have emerged and have not been yet considered for routine practice. The scope of this review is to go beyond the guidelines, providing insights into the most recent clinical updates in CAD, focusing on non-invasive diagnostic techniques, risk stratification, medical management and interventional therapies in the acute and stable scenarios. Highlighting and synthesizing the latest developments in these areas, this review aims to contribute to the understanding and management of CAD helping healthcare providers worldwide.

UNASSIGNED: The optimal timing for nonculprit vascular reconstruction surgery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) is still controversial. Our aim was to explore the optimal intervention time for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in STEMI patients who underwent MVD.
UNASSIGNED: The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2024 for clinical studies comparing immediate multivessel PCI and staged multivessel PCI in patients with STEMI. The primary outcomes were death from any cause, cardiovascular death, noncardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, stent thrombosis, renal dysfunction and major bleeding. The risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with fixed-effects models and random-effects models, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Five randomized trials with 2,782 patients and six prospective observational studies with 3,131 patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The staged PCI group had significantly lower pooled RRs for myocardial infarction (0.43, 95% CI = 0.27-0.67; P = 0.0002) and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization (0.57, 95% CI = 0.41-0.78; P = 0.0004). There were no significant differences in any cause of death, cardiovascular cause of death, or noncardiac cause of death. However, the results of prospective observational studies in the real world indicated that the staged PCI group had significantly lower pooled ORs for all-cause mortality (2.30, 95% CI = 1.22-4.34; P = 0.01), cardiovascular death (2.29, 95% CI = 1.10-4.77; P = 0.03), and noncardiovascular death (3.46, 95% CI = 1.40-8.56; P = 0.007).
UNASSIGNED: According to our randomized trial analysis, staged multivessel PCI significantly reduces the risk of myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization compared to immediate multivessel PCI. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or noncardiovascular mortality risk. However, prospective non-randomized studies suggest there might be a benefit in mortality in the staged PCI group. Therefore, staged multivessel PCI may be the optimal PCI strategy for STEMI patients with MVD.