OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of the thrombotic risk criteria proposed in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to predict the ischaemic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
RESULTS: Consecutive patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome undergoing PCI at a large tertiary-care center from 2014 to 2019 were included. Patients were stratified into low, moderate, or high thrombotic risk based on the ESC criteria. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at 1 year, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding. Among 11 787 patients, 2641 (22.4%) were at low-risk, 5286 (44.8%) at moderate risk, and 3860 (32.7%) at high-risk. There was an incremental risk of MACE at 1 year in patients at moderate (hazard ratios (HR) 2.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.78-3.58) and high-risk (HR 3.39, 95% CI 2.39-4.80) as compared to those at low-risk, due to higher rates of all-cause death and MI. Major bleeding rates were increased in high-risk patients (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25-2.02), but similar between the moderate and low-risk group. The Harrell\'s C-index for MACE was 0.60.
CONCLUSIONS: The thrombotic risk criteria of the 2023 ESC guidelines for ACS enable to stratify patients undergoing PCI in categories with an incremental 1 year risk of MACE; however, their overall predictive ability for MACE is modest. Future studies should confirm the value of these criteria to identify patients benefiting from an extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

BACKGROUND: All available recommendations about the management of antithrombotic therapies (ATs) in patients who experienced traumatic brain injury (TBI) are mainly based on expert opinion because of the lack of strength in the available evidence-based medicine. Currently, the withdrawal and the resumption of AT in these patients is empirical, widely variable, and based on the individual assessment of the attending physician. The main difficulty is to balance the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks to improve patient outcome.
METHODS: Under the endorsement of the Neurotraumatology Section of Italian Society of Neurosurgery, the Italian Society for the Study about Haemostasis and Thrombosis, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care, and the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies, a working group (WG) of clinicians completed two rounds of questionnaires, using the Delphi method, in a multidisciplinary setting. A table for thrombotic and bleeding risk, with a dichotomization in high risk and low risk, was established before questionnaire administration. In this table, the risk is calculated by matching different isolated TBI (iTBI) scenarios such as acute and chronic subdural hematomas, extradural hematoma, brain contusion (intracerebral hemorrhage), and traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage with patients under active AT treatment. The registered indication could include AT primary prevention, cardiac valve prosthesis, vascular stents, venous thromboembolism, and atrial fibrillation.
RESULTS: The WG proposed a total of 28 statements encompassing the most common clinical scenarios about the withdrawal of antiplatelets, vitamin K antagonists, and direct oral anticoagulants in patients who experienced blunt iTBI. The WG voted on the grade of appropriateness of seven recommended interventions. Overall, the panel reached an agreement for 20 of 28 (71%) questions, deeming 11 of 28 (39%) as appropriate and 9 of 28 (32%) as inappropriate interventions. The appropriateness of intervention was rated as uncertain for 8 of 28 (28%) questions.
CONCLUSIONS: The initial establishment of a thrombotic and/or bleeding risk scoring system can provide a vital theoretical basis for the evaluation of effective management in individuals under AT who sustained an iTBI. The listed recommendations can be implemented into local protocols for a more homogeneous strategy. Validation using large cohorts of patients needs to be developed. This is the first part of a project to update the management of AT in patients with iTBI.

Periprocedural management of anticoagulation is a common clinical conundrum that involves a multidisciplinary team, cuts across many specialties, and varies greatly between institutions in the way it is practiced. Nowhere is this more evident than in the management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although they have been found to improve patient outcomes, standardized evidence-based protocols are infrequently in place. The frequency of anticoagulant interruption in preparation for a procedure is high, with an estimated 250,000 patients undergoing temporary interruption annually in North America alone. Knowledge about risk of bleeding and short-term thrombotic risk resides in many specialties, further complicating the issue. Our goal in creating this pathway is to help guide clinicians in the complex decision making in this area. In this document, we aim to: 1) validate the appropriateness of the decision to chronically anticoagulate; 2) guide clinicians in the decision of whether to interrupt anticoagulation; 3) provide direction on how to interrupt anticoagulation with specific guidance for vitamin K antagonists and direct-acting oral anticoagulants; 4) evaluate whether to bridge with a parenteral agent periprocedurally; 5) offer advice on how to bridge; and 6) outline the process of restarting anticoagulation post-procedure.