BACKGROUND: Spontaneous mesenteric hematoma is a rare condition that is diagnosed when clinical and pathological findings do not identify an obvious causative disease. Various treatment options for spontaneous mesenteric hematoma exist; however, there are no clear treatment criteria. Herein, we report a case of spontaneous mesenteric hematoma that was successfully treated surgically and discuss the optimum treatment strategy based on similar cases.
METHODS: A 63-year-old man with abdominal persisting for 3 days presented to our hospital after going into shock without any triggers. The patient had a history of atrial fibrillation, stroke, and an aneurysm, and was receiving antithrombotic therapy. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a mass structure within the sigmoid mesentery, which was suspected to be a hematoma. The patient was admitted to the hospital for follow-up observation after initial infusion and vital stabilization. However, the following day, the patient developed acute generalized peritonitis with necrosis of the sigmoid colon; therefore, emergency Hartmann\'s surgery was performed. Intraoperative and histopathological examinations revealed no evidence of bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous mesenteric hematomas tend to be associated with intestinal necrosis and may require surgical treatment with bowel resection owing to the difficulty in identifying the responsible vessel. Moreover, our results suggest that the presence of antithrombotic therapy may be an important factor affecting spontaneous mesenteric hematoma development.

BACKGROUND: The impact of post-stroke antithrombotic regimen in atrial fibrillation (AF) is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To describe antithrombotic therapy prescribing patterns following ischemic stroke, and its impact on outcomes.
METHODS: A total of 23,165 AF patients experiencing ischemic stroke were identified. Subsequent post-stroke events included recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, mortality, and composite outcomes.
RESULTS: Among those who were non-anticoagulated before a stroke, 33.5% remained non-anticoagulated and 39.2% were prescribed only antiplatelets (AP) post-stroke. Compared to NOACs post-stroke, there was a significant increase in ischemic stroke and mortality in non-anticoagulated (aHRs 2.09 and 3.92) and antiplatelet users (aHRs 1.32 and 1.28). Post-stroke warfarin was associated with a significantly incresaed risk of major bleeding compared to NOACs (aHR 1.23). Among 769 patients receiving NOACs before stroke and continuing NOAC post-stroke, those switching to a different NOAC were associated with significantly higher risk of ischemic stroke (aHR 2.07) and composite outcomes (aHRs 1.36-1.85) with no difference in ICH, major bleeding or mortality compared to those on the same NOAC post-stroke. Among patients receiving NOACs before stroke, the risks of clinical events were similar between patients on NOACs alone and those on NOAC plus AP post-stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: NOAC alone post-stroke was associated with a better clinical outcome compared to non-anticoagulation, AP or warfarin. Among patients already taking NOACs before stroke, the addition of AP didn\'t confer additional benefits compared to NOACs alone. A change of NOAC types post-stroke was associated with a two-fold higher risk of ischemic stroke and composite outcomes.

Limited comparative data exist regarding the risk of cardiogenic emboli in patients with isolated atrial flutter (AFL) Some studies suggest a lower complication risk in AFL compared to atrial fibrillation (Afib), but methodological limitations and conflicting reports necessitate a comprehensive investigation. Our analysis proposes that isolated AFL carries a lower risk of ischemic events and left atrial thrombus formation than AFib. Importantly, we caution against applying stroke risk assessment approaches designed for AFib to AFL patients, as it may lead to harmful overestimations and unnecessary anticoagulant prescriptions. Furthermore, we highlight the current lack of sufficient data to determine the overall clinical benefit of prolonged anticoagulant therapy in patients with isolated AFL, especially when CHA2DS2-VASc index values are below 4. This review challenges existing perceptions, offering insights into the nuanced risk profiles of the transitional nature of isolated AFL due to the high incidence of AFib development within a year of AFL diagnosis. Tailored risk assessments and further research are essential for precise clinical decision-making in this dynamic landscape.

Since the introduction of the first pharmacological therapy for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in the early 20th century, treatment of myocardial infarction has evolved extensively throughout the years. Mechanical revascularization therapies such as the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, combined with the ongoing development of pharmacological therapies have successfully improved the survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction. To date, antiplatelet therapy (consisting of aspirin and an oral P2Y 12 inhibitor) and anticoagulation therapy represent the main stay of pharmacological treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The routine use of clopidogrel as antiplatelet agent has been largely replaced by the use of the more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors ticagrelor and prasugrel. Unfractionated heparin remains the preferred anticoagulant therapy, despite the development of other anticoagulants, including enoxaparin and bivalirudin. To date, limited evidence exists supporting a pre-hospital initiation of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in STEMI patients. The use of potent intravenous antiplatelet agents, including the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and the intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor cangrelor, is currently restricted to specific clinical settings. While several potent antithrombotic agents already exist, the search for novel potent antithrombotic agents continues, with a focus on balancing antithrombotic properties with an improved safety profile to reduce excess bleeding. This review provides an overview of currently available pharmacological therapies for the treatment of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, and an outlook for the ongoing development of novel agents in this field.

Historically, prevention from ischemic events with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) took precedence over protection from bleeding. However, increasing data suggest that major bleeding complications are as detrimental as ischemic events. Awareness about the prognostic impact of bleeding prompted the search for new strategies aimed at maximizing both ischemic and bleeding protection. This is noteworthy because patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) have generally been underrepresented in clinical trials on DAPT and they often are at increased risk of ischemic events as well. The present review discusses the evidence base for new pharmacotherapeutic strategies to decrease bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection among HBR patients undergoing PCI, including shortening DAPT duration, early aspirin withdrawal, and P2Y 12 inhibitor de-escalation.

Following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), an initial course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor ( P2Y 12 -i) is recommended to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications. After the initial period of DAPT, antiplatelet monotherapy, usually consisting of aspirin, is administered for long-term secondary prevention. However, over the last few years there has been accruing evidence on P2Y 12 -i monotherapy, both in the acute (i.e., post-PCI; after a brief period of DAPT, transitioning to monotherapy before six or 12 months in patients with chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively) and chronic (i.e., long-term secondary prevention; after completion of six or 12 months of DAPT, in patients with chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively) settings. In aggregate, most studies of short DAPT with transition to P2Y 12 -i monotherapy showed a reduced risk of bleeding complications, without any significant increase in ischemic events as compared to standard DAPT. On the other hand, the evidence on long-term P2Y 12 -i monotherapy is scarce, but results from a randomized trial showed that clopidogrel monotherapy outperformed aspirin monotherapy in terms of net benefit, ischemic events and bleeding. Antiplatelet therapy is also recommended for patients undergoing PCI and with an established indication for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this scenario, a brief period of triple therapy (i.e., aspirin, P2Y 12 -i and OAC) is followed by a course of dual antithrombotic therapy (usually with P2Y 12 -i and OAC) and ultimately by lifelong OAC alone. European and American guidelines have been recently updated to provide new recommendations on antithrombotic therapy, including the endorsement of P2Y 12 -i monotherapy in different settings. However, some areas of uncertainty still remain and further randomized investigations are ongoing to fulfil current gaps in knowledge. In this review, we assess the current knowledge and evidence on P2Y 12 -i monotherapy for the early and long-term secondary prevention in patients undergoing PCI, and explore upcoming research and future directions in the field.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been established in clinical practice as an attractive alternative to oral anticoagulation for preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk. The devices approved in Europe and United States (US) for percutaneous LAAC contain metal and antithrombotic therapy is strongly recommended after their implantation to prevent apposition of thrombus on the atrial surface of the device during endothelialization. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal antithrombotic drug regimen following device implantation in view of the incomplete understanding of the LAAC device healing process, the lack of randomized clinical trials comparing different antithrombotic agents after LAAC and the heterogeneous bleeding risk of patients undergoing LAAC. Thus, this review aims to evaluate the available evidence and the remaining challenges related to the post-LAAC antithrombotic regimens. Furthermore, common clinical scenarios associated with challenging management of antithrombotic therapy after LAAC and potential future directions, will be discussed.

Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is the most frequent type of acute coronary syndrome in the elderly. Antithrombotic therapy is the cornerstone of pharmacological therapy in the setting of an acute ischemic event, a clinical scenario in which thrombotic and bleeding risks ought to be considered, particularly in older patients. In this article, specific aspects of antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients with NSTEMI are reviewed, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and different clinical situations. The role of frailty and other common geriatric conditions, that are associated with worse prognosis in elderly patients with cardiovascular disease, is also addressed.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is considered a relatively safe procedure associated with low rates of complications, but is inevitably associated with short and mid-to-long term increased bleeding risk. Besides the short term risk associated with the arterial access to perform PCI, enhanced bleeding risk persists for several months, given the need for antithrombotic therapy to prevent procedure-related thrombotic complications as well as ischemic recurrences. Bleeding is a powerful harbinger of adverse outcomes. This awareness has fuelled intense research on bleeding reduction strategies, including new PCI devices and techniques as well as new medications and antithrombotic regimens. We here review the mechanisms and prevalence of bleeding in PCI patients, discuss the available evidence from a practical point of view, and explore future perspectives on how to treat and prevent bleeding complications in these patients.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.