Clinical evidence of interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors

Clopidogrel is approved for reduction of atherothrombotic events in patients with cardiovascular(CV)and cerebrovascular disease.Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel decreases the risk of major adverse cardiac events after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention,compared with aspirin alone.Due to concern about gastrointestinal bleeding in patients who are receiving clopidogrel and aspirin therapy,current guidelines recommend combined use of a proton pump inhibitor(PPI)to decrease the risk of bleeding.Data from previous pharmacological studies have shown that PPIs,which are extensively metabolized by the cytochrome system,may decrease the ADP-induced platelet aggregation of clopidogrel. Results from retrospective cohort studies have shown a higher incidence of major CV events in patients re-ceiving both clopidogrel and PPIs than in those without PPIs.However,other retrospective analyses of randomized clinical trials have not shown that the concomitant PPI administration is associated with increased CV events among clopidogrel users.These controversial results suggest that large specific studies are needed. This article reviews the metabolism of clopidogrel and PPIs,existing clinical data regarding the interaction between clopidogrel and PPIs,and tries to provide recommendations for health care professionals.     

Bivalirudin versus heparin with or without glycoprotein Ⅱb/Ⅲa inhibitors in?patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention:Pooled patient-level analysis from the

Background In the HORIZONS-AMI(Harmonizing Outcomes with Revasculari Zati ON and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, 3,602 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction(STEMI) treated with bivalirudin had lower bleeding and mortality rates, but higher acute stent thrombosis rates compared with heparin + a glycoprotein Ⅱb / Ⅲa inhibitor(GPI). Subsequent changes in primary PCI, including the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, frequent radial intervention, and pre-hospital medication administration, were incorporated into the EUROMAX(European Ambulance Acute Coronary Syndrome Angiography) trial, which assigned 2,218 patients to bivalirudin versus heparin ± GPI before primary PCI.Objectives The goal of this study was to examine the outcomes of procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin ± GPI for primary PCI, given the evolution in primary PCI.Methods Databases from HORIZONS-AMI and EUROMAX were pooled for patient-level analysis. The Breslow-Day test evaluated heterogeneity between trials.Results A total of 5,800 patients were randomized to bivalirudin(n = 2,889) or heparin ± GPI(n = 2,911). The radial approach was used in 21.3% of patients, prasugrel / ticagrelor was used in 18.1% of patients, and GPI was used in 84.8% of the control group. Bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI resulted in reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding(4.2% vs. 7.8%; relative risk [RR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to0.66; P 0.0001), thrombocytopenia(1.4% vs. 2.9%, RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.71; P = 0.0002), and cardiac mortality(2.0% vs. 2.9%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.03), with nonsignificantly different rates of reinfarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stroke, and all-cause mortality. Bivalirudin resulted in increased acute( 24 h) stent thrombosis rates(1.2% vs. 0.2%; RR: 6.04; 95% CI: 2.55 to 14.31;P 0.0001), with nonsignificantly different rates of subacute stent thrombosis. Composite net adverse clinical events were lower with bivalirudin(8.8% vs. 11.9%; RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.86; P 0.0001). There was no significant heterogeneity between the 2 trials for these outcomes, and results were consistent across major subgroups.Conclusions Despite increased acute stent thrombosis, primary PCI with bivalirudin improved 30-day net clinical outcomes, with significant reductions in major bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and transfusions compared? with heparin ± GPI, results that were consistent with evolution in PCI technique and pharmacotherapy.(Harmonizing Outcomes with Revasculari Zati ON and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI];NCT00433966)(European Ambulance Acute Coronary Syndrome Angiography [EUROMAX]; NCT01087723)(From: Journal of the American College of Cardiology Volume 65, Issue 1, 6-13 January 2015, Pages 27-38)     

Impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Background There is great debate on the possible adverse interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel. In addition, whether the use of PPIs affects the clinical efficacy of ticagrelor remains less known. We aimed to determine the impact of concomitant administration of PPIs and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from a “real world”, international, multi-center registry between 2003 and 2014 (n = 15,401) and assessed the impact of concomitant administration of PPIs and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on 1-year composite primary endpoint (all-cause death, re-infarction, or severe bleeding) in patients with ACS after PCI. Results Of 9,429 patients in the final cohort, 54.8% (n = 5165) was prescribed a PPI at discharge. Patients receiving a PPI were older, more often female, and were more likely to have comorbidities. No association was observed between PPI use and the primary endpoint for patients receiving clopidogrel (adjusted HR: 1.036; 95% CI: 0.903–1.189) or ticagrelor (adjusted HR: 2.320; 95% CI: 0.875–6.151) (P_interaction = 0.2004). Similarly, use of a PPI was not associated with increased risk of all-cause death, re-infarction, or a decreased risk of severe bleeding for patients treated with either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Conclusions In patients with ACS following PCI, concomitant use of PPIs was not associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes in patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Our findings indicate it is reasonable to use a PPI in combination with clopidogrel or ticagrelor, especially in patients with a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.     

Analysis of the risk factors of patients with acute coronary syndrome suffering hemorrhage during hospitalization

Objective To analyze the risk factors related to in-hospital bleeding for patients with acute coronary syndrome(ACS). Methods Clinical and therapeutic data of 3 807 patients who were registered with acute coronary syndrome in SINO-GRACE in China from March 2001 to     

Benefits and Safety of Tirofiban among Older Patients With Non-ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background Glycoprotein （GP） Ⅱb/Ⅲa antagonist has been shown its efficacy and safety in high-risk patients with acute coronary syndrome （ACS） who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Whether GP Ⅱb/Ⅲa antagonist is as effective and safe in older patients （ ≥ 65 years old ） as in younger patients remains unclear. Objectives Our objective was to determine whether GP Ⅱb/Ⅲa antagonist tirofiban was effective and safe in patients aged ≥65 years who underwent PCI. Methods From September 2006 to August 2008, 622 patients with non-ST-elevation ACS （NSTE ACS） were randomized to receive either tirofiban （n = 313 ） or placebo （n = 309）. The infusion duration was 48 hours for both groups. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events （MACE） was assessed at 180 days. Incidence of bleeding was monitored through 24 hours after trial therapy was discontinued. Results The incidence of MACE for the tirofiban group versus the placebo group was 7.3% vs 12. 6% （P 〈0. 05）. Among these MACE, death rate was 2.6% vs 4. 6 % （ P = 0. 198 ）, non-fatal MI was 3.8 % vs 6.5 % （ P = 0. 150）, and target vessel revascularization was 1.3% vs 1.6% （P =0. 751 ）, in the two groups, respectively. The total bleeding rate for the tirofiban group versus the placebo group was 28.1% vs 6.8% （P 〈0. 05 ）. The TIMI major and minor bleeding rates for the tirifiban versus the placebo group were 2.2% vs 1.6% （ P 〉 0. 05 ） and 25.9% vs 5.2% （ P 〈 0. 05 ）, respectively. Conclusions Tirofiban appears to be effective and safe in older patients with ACS who underwent PCI.     

Effectiveness of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome:Updated systematic review with meta-analysis

AIM:To investigate the efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome(IBS) patients.METHODS:Pub Med,Cochrane library,Scopus,Google Scholar,and Clinicaltrial.gov databases were searched for literature published between September 2007 and December 2013.The applied Mesh terms were "probiotics," "irritable bowel syndrome," and "irritable bowel syndrome treatment." The collected data contained24 clinical trials,of which 15 were eligible for meta-analysis and nine were reviewed systematically.All studies were randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with IBS that investigated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS improvement.The Jadad score was used to assess the methodological quality of trials.The quality scale ranges from 0 to 5 points,with a score ≤ 2 indicating a low quality report,and a score of ≥3 indicating a high quality report.Relative risk(RR),standardized effect size,and 95%CI were calculated using the Der Simonian-Laird method.The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity with P 0.05.Funnel plots were constructed and Egger's and BeggMazumdar tests were performed to assess publication bias.RESULTS:A total of 1793 patients were included in the meta-analysis.The RR of responders to therapies based on abdominal pain score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics to placebo was 1.96(95%CI:1.14-3.36;P = 0.01).RR of responders to therapies based on a global symptom score in IBS patients for two included trials comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.43(95%CI:1.13-5.21;P = 0.02).For adequate improvement of general symptoms in IBS patients,the RR of seven included trials(six studies) comparing probiotics with placebo was 2.14(95%CI:1.08-4.26;P = 0.03).Distension,bloating,and flatulence were evaluated using an IBS severity scoring system in three trials(two studies) to compare the effect of probiotic therapy in IBS patients with placebo,the standardized effect size of mean differences for probiotics therapy was-2.57(95%CI:-13.05--7.92).CONCLUSION:Probiotics reduce pain and symptom severity scores.The results demonstrate the beneficial effects of probiotics in IBS patients in comparison with placebo.     

A Comparative Study on Post-intervention Use of Tirofiban or Enoxaparin in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of post procedure use of platelet glycoprotein Ⅱb/Ⅲ a receptor in- hibitor （PGI） or low molecular weight heparin （LMWH） in patients with acute coronary syndrome （ACS） undergoing dual anti-platelet loading therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Methods This was a prospective randomized grouping controlled study in 174 patients with ACS received aspirin 300 mg plus clopidogrel 600mg loading before PCI. After procedure, patients were randomized to intravenous tirofiban for 12 -24 hours （tirofiban group） or subcutaneous enoxaparin for 5 days （enoxaparin group）. Cardiac ischemic events, major bleeding complications, minor bleeding complications, thrombocytopenia, and vascular access complications in both groups were investigated. Results Cardiac ischemic events, major bleeding complications, minor bleeding complications, thrombocytopenia, and vascular access complications in tirofiban group were 8.0% , 3.4% , 6.8% , 3.4% , and 3.4% , respectively. In enoxaparin group, aforementioned event rates were 7%, 2. 3%, 6. 0%, 2. 3%, and 5.8%, respectively. No statistical significance was found between two groups. Conclusions In the setting of dual anti-platelet medication loading and PCI for the treatment of ACS, it is effective to use tirofiban or enoxaparin for aggressive post procedure antithrombotic therapy. It comes with a very low major bleeding complication rate. Use of GPI for 12 to 24 hours was comparable to use of LMWH for 5 days in efficacy and safety.     

Nonselective beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients with no or small varices:A meta-analysis

AIM:To explore effects of nonselective beta-blockers(NSBBs) in cirrhotic patients with no or small varices.METHODS:The Pub Med,EMBASE,Science Direct,and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant papers.A meta-analysis was performed using ORs with 95%CI as the effect sizes.Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the studies including patients without varices and those with small varices.RESULTS:Overall,784 papers were initially retrieved from the database searches,of which six randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis.The incidences of large varices development(OR = 1.05,95%CI:0.25-4.36;P = 0.95),first upper gastrointestinal bleeding(OR = 0.59,95%CI:0.24-1.47;P = 0.26),and death(OR = 0.70,95%CI:0.45-1.10;P = 0.12) were similar between NSBB and placebo groups.However,the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the NSBB group compared with the placebo group(OR = 3.47,95%CI:1.45-8.33;P = 0.005).The results of subgroup analyses were similar to those of overall analyses.CONCLUSION:The results of this meta-analysis indicate that NSBBs should not be recommended for cirrhotic patients with no or small varices.     

Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients with long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective The main aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after coronary intervention. Background The optimal regimen remains controversial patients taking OAC after coronary intervention. Methods PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for eligible studies including data of triple therapy (TT) versus OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy for patients requiring OAC after coronary intervention. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE). The safety outcome was major bleeding. Results Fourteen studies with 32825 patients were included. Among prospective studies, patients with TT had a trend toward a higher risk of major bleeding [odds ratios (OR): 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98–2.49, P = 0.06] and a markedly higher risk of all-cause death (OR; 2.11, 95% CI: 1.10–4.06 P = 0.02) compared with OAC plus clopidogrel. Meanwhile, TT was associated with decreased risks of MACCE (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 051–0.77 P < 0.0001), all-cause death (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20–0.97, P = 0.04), and stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/peripheral embolism (PE) (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09–0.96, P = 0.04) compared with OAC plus aspirin.     

Comparison of benefit and safety between different loading dose of clopidogrel on elderly patients undergoing primary percutaneous cronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background Despite the proven benefit of 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous cronary intervention (PCI), there is still concern about its benefit and safety on elderly population. Methods Data of 172 consecutive elderly patients (≥75 years) with STEMI who underwent primary PCI at Guangdong Provincial Cardiovascular Institute from January 2008 to December 2011 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into 600-mg loading clopidogrel group and 300-mg clopidogrel group accoring to the loading dose of clopidogrel before primary percunaeous coronary intervention(PCI). Enzymatic myocardial infarction size estimated by peak creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) and patency of the infarct-related artery (IRA) were compared. Thirty-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), which consist of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, target vessel revascularization (TVR) or stent thrombosis (ST) were compared to assess the efficacy of different loading dose. Bleeding information was compared as well to assess the safety of different pretreatment stragety before primary PCI. Results 96 patients were adminstered with 600-mg loading clopidogrel before primary PCI while 76 were administered with 300-mg. Patency of the IRA was significantly higher in patients administered with 600-mg loading clopidogrel therapy as compared with those who received 300-mg loading clopidogrel (94.8% vs. 85.5%, P = 0.038). 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel was associated with lower incidence of 30-day MACEs compared with 300-mg loading dose of clopidogrel (8.3% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.029) while did not increase the risk of TIMI major (3.1% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.770) and minor bleeding (10.4% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.376). Conclusion 600-mg loading clopidogrel improves final patency of the IRA and clinical outcome as compared with 300-mg loading clopidogrel without increasing bleeding hazard.     

Clinical relevance of clopidogrel-proton pump inhibitors interaction

Clopidogrel is a widely used antiplatelet agent for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease, acute coronary syndromes and ischemic stroke. Even though clopidogrel is safer than aspirin in terms of risk for gastrointestinal(GI) bleeding, the elderly, and patients with a history of prior GI bleeding, with Helicobacter pylori infection or those who are also treated with aspirin, anticoagulants, corticosteroids or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are at high risk for GI complications when treated with clopidogrel. Accordingly, proton pump inhibitors are frequently administered in combination with clopidogrel to reduce the risk for GI bleeding. Nevertheless, pharmacodynamic studies suggest that omeprazole might attenuate the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel. However, in observational studies, this interaction does not appear to translate into increased cardiovascular risk in patients treated with this combination. Moreover, in the only randomized, double-blind study that assessed the cardiovascular implications of combining clopidogrel and omeprazole, patients treated with clopidogrel/omeprazole combination had reduced risk for GI events and similar risk for cardiovascular events than patients treated with clopidogrel and placebo. However, the premature interruption of the study and the lack of power analysis in terms of the cardiovascular endpoint do not allow definite conclusions regarding the cardiovascular safety of clopidogrel/omeprazole combination. Other proton pump inhibitors do not appear to interact with clopidogrel. Nevertheless, given the limitations of existing observational and interventional studies, the decision to administer proton pump inhibitors to patients treated with clopidogrel should be individualized based on the patient’s bleeding and cardiovascular risk.     

Decreased plasma urotensin Ⅱ levels inversely correlate with extent and severity of coronary artery disease

Objective To determine the plasma urolensin Ⅱ(UII) levels in various types of coronary heart disease and to clarify how the plasma UII levels correlate with the clinical presentation, extent and severity of coronary artery atherosclerosis (CAD). Methods: One hundred and three aged patients undergoing elective diagnostic coronary angiography for proven or clinical suspected coronary heart disease were enrolled in this study. The extent and severity of coronary artery disease were evaluated by vessel score and Gensini score, respectively. Plasma UII levels were measured by radioimmunoassay. Results: The plasma UII levels in the patients with modest to severe coronary stenosis (3.03±0.34 pg/ml, 1.83±0.67 pg/ml) were significantly lower than that in subjects with normal coronary artery (4.80±1.11 pg/ml, P<0.001). The plasma UII levels in patients with coronary heart disease were also significantly lower than that in patients with insignificant coronary stenosis (P < 0. 001). Compared to patients with stable angina pectoris, plasma UII levels in patients with acute coronary syndrome were significantly decreased (1.89±0.51 pg/ml vs 2.42±0.77 pg/ml, P < 0.001). Plasma UII levels were found to be negatively correlated with the severity of coronary artery stenosis (r = -0.488, P<0.001), as well as the vessel score (r = -0.408, P<0.05) in the patients with CAD. Conclusion: Significant inverse correlations exist between the plasma UII levels, and the extent and severity of coronary artery stenosis. These findings suggest that plasma UII contribute to the development and progression of coronary artery stenosis, and may be a novel marker to predict clinical types, as well as the extent and severity of coronary artery disease in the patients.     

Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes： A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

ABSTRACT Background The choice between coronary artery bypass surgery （CABG） and percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） for revascularisation in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease, who account for 25% of revascularisation procedures, is much debated. We aimed to assess whether all-cause mortality differed be- tween patients with diabetes who had CABG or PCI by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of ran- domised controlled trials （RCTs） comparing CABG with PCI in the modem stent era.     

Carvedilol vs endoscopic variceal ligation for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding: Systematic review and metaanalysis

BACKGROUND Variceal hemorrhage is associated with high mortality and is the cause of death for 20–30% of patients with cirrhosis. Nonselective β blockers(NSBBs) or endoscopic variceal ligation(EVL) are recommended for primary prevention of variceal bleeding in patients with medium to large esophageal varices.Meanwhile, combination of EVL and NSBBs is the recommended approach for the secondary prevention. Carvedilol has greater efficacy than other NSBBs as it decreases intrahepatic resistance. We hypothesized that there was no difference between carvedilol and EVL intervention for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients.AIM To evaluate the efficacy of carvedilol compared to EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhotic patients METHODS We searched relevant literatures in major journal databases(CENTRAL,MEDLINE, and EMBASE) from March to August 2018. Patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, regardless of aetiology and severity, with or without a history of variceal bleeding, and aged ≥ 18 years old were included in this review.Only randomized controlled trials(RCTs) that compared the efficacy of carvedilol and that of EVL for primary and secondary prevention of variceal bleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension were considered, irrespective of publication status, year of publication, and language.RESULTS Seven RCTs were included. In four trials assessing the primary prevention, no significant difference was found on the events of variceal bleeding(RR: 0.74,95%CI: 0.37-1.49), all-cause mortality(RR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.76-1.58), and bleedingrelated mortality(RR: 1.02, 95%CI: 0.34-3.10) in patients who were treated with carvedilol compared to EVL. In three trials assessing secondary prevention, there was no difference between two interventions for the incidence of rebleeding(RR:1.10, 95%CI: 0.75-1.61). The fixed-effect model showed that, compared to EVL,carvedilol decreased all-cause mortality by 49%(RR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.79), with little or no evidence of heterogeneity.CONCLUSION Carvedilol had similar efficacy to EVL in preventing the first variceal bleeding in cirrhosis patients with esophageal varices. It was superior to EVL alone for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding in regard to all-cause mortality reduction.     

Risk factors of acute myocardial infarction following primary percutaneous coronary intervention among elderly patients

Background and Objective Large randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） with the routine use of drug-eluting stents is safe and effective, however, the patients older than 75 years undergoing PCI are at increased risk for major adverse cardiac events, so that the patients are usually excluded from this trial. The aim of the present study was to assess the early clinical outcome and risk factors in old patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction （STEMI） following primary PCI. Methods We analyzed the outcome after stenting in 136 patients older than 60 years in our coronary care unit with acute STEMI, and the patients were further classified in 2 age groups： patients≥75 years and 〈75 years. Results Though the older group had a higher prevalence of adverse baseline characteristics and lower final TIMI flow than those of the younger, the procedural success had no difference between two groups. The main adverse clinical events （MACE） for the old group was a little higher comparing with the younger in 12-month following up. Conclusions Our study suggest that drug-eluting stent implantation in elderly patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction has high initial procedural success rates despite having more severe baseline risk characteristics, and to shorten the time form symptom onset to PCI and improve final TIMI flow strategy may decrease MACE among old patients following PCI（J Geriatr Cardio12009; 6：67-70）.     

Therapeutic effect of bivalirudin during PCI in patients with acute coronary syndrome complicated with high bleeding risk

正Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) for patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk.Methods 108 patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk receiving PCI treatment were randomly divided into test group (bivalirudin group)     

Final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with 1-stent technique using drug-eluting stent:A meta-analysis of four clinical studies

The effects of final kissing balloon dilatation(FKBD) have not been systemically evaluated in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with 1-stent strategy.A meta-analysis was performed to integrate the results of independent studies to provide a more precise estimate of the treatment effect.Methods A systematic literature search was carried out for all the relevant articles up till March 2012.Only studies with adequate data reporting major adverse cardiac events(MACE) and target lesion revascularization(TLR),and follow-up of at least 6 months were included.The endpoints analyzed in this meta-analysis were stent thrombosis(ST),all-cause death,myocardial infarction(MI),MACE and TLR.Result Four studies were found to be eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis.There were also no significant differences with the occurrence of MI(1.7% vs.1.5%,OR 1.14,95% CI 0.38 to 3.44,P=0.81),all-cause death(1.1% vs.1.1%,P=0.84,OR 0.91,95% CI 0.35 to 2.35) and stent thrombosis(0.9% vs.0.8%,OR 1.03,95% CI 0.35 to 3.09,P=0.95) in patients with FKBD or No FKBD.However,FKBD was associated with a higher risk of MACE(8.0% vs.5.3%,OR 1.56,95% CI,1.02-2.39,P=0.04),primarily as a result of an increased risk of TLR(6.4% vs.3.4%,OR 2.12,95% CI 1.30 to 3.48 P=0.003).Conclusions In patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with 1-stent technique,FKBD may be associated with adverse outcomes mainly because of a higher rate of TLR.     

Relationship between maximal amplitude of thrombelastography and intracoronary thrombus in patients with acute coronary syndrome

正Objective Thrombelastography(TEG)has been widely used for real-time monitoring of coagulation and bleeding systems.We want to investigate the relationship between intracoronary thrombotic lesion and TEG parameters in acute coronary syndrome(ACS)patients or guiding antithrombotic therapy.Methods A total of 328 ACS     

Impact of invasive treatment strategy on health-related quality of life six months after non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome

BackgroundFew studies have compared change in the health-related quality of life （HRQL） following treatment of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome （NSTE-ACS） with either percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） or coronary artery bypass grafting （CABG）. This study is tocompare changes in HRQL six months after hospital discharge between NSTE-ACS pa-tients who underwent either PCI or CABG.Methods HRQL was assessed using the Seattle angina questionnaire at admission and six months after discharge in 1012 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS. To assess associations of PCI and CABG with HRQL changes, logistic regression models were constructed treating changes in the score of each dimension of the Seattle angina question-naire as dependent variables.Results Although both the PCI and CABG groups experienced angina relief and other improvements at 6-month follow-up （P〈0.001）, the CABG relative to PCI group showed more significant improvements in angina frequency （P= 0.044） and quality of life （P= 0.028）. In multivariable logistic analysis, CABG also was an independent predictor for both im-provement of angina frequency （OR： 1.62, 95%CI： 1.09-4.63,P= 0.042） and quality of life （OR： 2.04, 95%CI： 1.26-6.92,P= 0.038） relative to PCI.Conclusions In patients with NSTE-ACS, both PCI and CABG provide great improvement in disease-specific health status at six months, with that of CABG being more prominent in terms of angina frequency and quality of life.     

Bivalirudin is superior to heparins alone with bailout GP Ⅱb / Ⅲa inhibitors in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction transported emergently for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the EUROMAX tria

Aims In the HORIZONS trial, in-hospital treatment with bivalirudin reduced bleeding and mortality in primary percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) compared with heparin and routine glycoprotein Ⅱb / Ⅲa inhibitors(GPI). It is unknown whether this advantage of bivalirudin is observed in comparison with heparins only with GPI used as bailout. Methods and results In the EUROMAX study, 2198 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction(STEMI) were randomized during transport for primary PCI to bivalirudin or to heparins with optional GPI. Primary and principal outcome was the composites of death or nonCABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. This pre-specified analysis compared patients receiving bivalirudin(n = 1089) with those receiving heparins with routine upstream GPI(n = 649) and those receiving heparins only with GPI use restricted to bailout(n = 460). The primary outcome death and major bleeding occurred in5.1% with bivalirudin, 7.6% with heparin plus routine GPI(HR 0.67 and 95% CI 0.46-0.97, P = 0.034),and 9.8% with heparins plus bailout GPI(HR 0.52 and 95% CI 0.35-0.75, P = 0.006). Following adjustment by logistic regression, bivalirudin was still associated with significantly lower rates of the primary outcome(odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.87) and major bleeding(odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 – 0.82) compared with heparins alone with bailout GPI. Rates of stent thrombosis were higher with bivalirudin(1.6 vs. 0.6 vs.0.4%, P = 0.09 and 0.09). Conclusion Bivalirudin, started during transport for primary PCI, reduces major bleeding compared with both patients treated with heparin only plus bailout GPI and patients treated with heparin and routine GPI, but increased stent thrombosis.