Marco Roffi

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

ACC : American College of Cardiology ACCOAST : Comparison of Prasugrel at the Time of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or as Pretreatment at the Time of Diagnosis in Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndromes ACT

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA).

Authors/Task Force Members: Steen Dalby Kristensen* (Chairperson) (Denmark), Juhani Knuuti* (Chairperson) (Finland), Antti Saraste (Finland), Stefan Anker (Germany), Hans Erik Bøtker (Denmark), Stefan De Hert (Belgium), Ian Ford (UK), Jose Ramón Gonzalez-Juanatey (Spain), Bulent Gorenek (Turkey), Guy Robert Heyndrickx (Belgium), Andreas Hoeft (Germany), Kurt Huber (Austria), Bernard Iung (France), Keld Per Kjeldsen (Denmark), Dan Longrois (France), Thomas F. Lüscher (Switzerland), Luc Pierard (Belgium), Stuart Pocock (UK), Susanna Price (UK), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Per Anton Sirnes (Norway), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Vasilis Voudris (Greece), Christian Funck-Brentano (France).

2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on Non-cardiac Surgery: Cardiovascular Assessment and Management.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) are pleased to announce the publication of two new versions of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation from our respective organizations.1–3 These revisions were begun independently, dictated both by emerging, new information regarding the topic and the controversy regarding the legitimacy of data from previously published pivotal trials. Accordingly, the leadership of these international organizations recognized the importance of scientific collaboration and writing committee coordination for the benefit of the worldwide cardiology community. A joint statement was therefore posted in August 20134–6 to indicate that the respective CPGs were under revision and to provide some guidance regarding perioperative beta-blockade therapy in the interim. Since then, the members of both ESC and ACC/AHA guideline writing committees have reviewed the evidence thoroughly and systematically. The writing committees and the two supervisory task force groups decided to analyse separately the evidence about beta-blocker therapy used in the perioperative period and to develop specific treatment recommendations as a first step in the process of revision. After this independent work, the revised recommendations were shared between the two writing committees so that the rationales for any differences in recommendations could be articulated clearly. As a result of this process, we are confident that the evidence base has been objectively reviewed by two independent expert writing committees. The development of the two revised CPGs on perioperative cardiovascular care underscores the benefits of collaboration. Although the writing committees compiled and reviewed the evidence separately, they subsequently came together to validate their analyses, finding that they had both drawn on the same data and reached similar conclusions. Additionally, discussions are ongoing among the ACC, AHA, and ESC about sharing resources related to the systematic review of evidence. The potential advantages of more highly structured joint CPG initiatives are under active consideration. The CPGs on cardiovascular care in the perioperative period represent a fresh and objective review of old and new evidence in this important clinical arena. Features of the CPGs include the latest synthesis of the data on the use of beta-blockers in patients who have taken them chronically, considerations regarding selection of patients who are potential candidates to receive beta-blockers pre-operatively, and guidance regarding how to use this important and powerful class of drugs in the perioperative period. Clinicians will find the recommendations in these revised CPGs useful in their daily work and can be reassured that the recommendations have been vetted thoroughly by the most rigorous scientific process. Furthermore, the recommendations in both documents are fundamentally aligned, so that cardiovascular clinicians worldwide may deliver optimal, standardized care.

Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial

CONTEXT The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE To compare stents eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer with bare-metal stents in primary PCI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial of 1161 patients presenting with STEMI at 11 sites in Europe and Israel between September 19, 2009, and January 25, 2011. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 12 months. INTERVENTION Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Major adverse cardiac events at 1 year occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) receiving biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .004). The difference was driven by a lower risk of target vessel-related reinfarction (3 [0.5%] vs 15 [2.7%]; HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.69; P = .01) and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (9 [1.6%] vs 32 [5.7%]; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.59; P < .001) in patients receiving biolimus-eluting stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents. Rates of cardiac death were not significantly different (16 [2.9%] vs 20 [3.5%], P = .53). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (0.9%) treated with biolimus-eluting stents and 12 patients (2.1%; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents. CONCLUSION Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer resulted in a lower rate of the composite of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year among patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00962416.

2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

No abstract available Keywords: European Society of Cardiology; arrhythmias; cancer therapy; cardio-oncology; cardiotoxicity; chemotherapy; early detection; ischaemia; myocardial dysfunction; surveillance.

Randomized Comparison of a Titanium-Nitride-Oxide–Coated Stent With a Stainless Steel Stent for Coronary Revascularization The TiNOX Trial

Background—Stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide has been shown to reduce neointimal hyperplasia in the porcine restenosis model. We designed a prospective, randomized, clinical study to investigate the safety and efficacy of titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents compared with stainless steel stents. Methods and Results—Ninety-two patients with de novo lesions were randomly assigned to treatment with titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents (n=45) or stainless steel stents of otherwise identical design (n=47; control). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At 30 days, no stent thromboses or other adverse events had occurred in either group. Quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months revealed lower late loss (0.55±0.63 versus 0.90±0.76 mm, P=0.03) and percent diameter stenosis (26±17% versus 36±24%, P=0.04) in lesions treated with titanium-nitride oxide–coated than in control stents. Binary restenosis was reduced from 33% in the control group to 15% in the titanium-nitride oxide–coated stent group (P=0.07). Intravascular ultrasound studies at 6 months showed smaller neointimal volume in titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents than in control stents (18±21 versus 48±28 mm3, P<0.0001). Major adverse cardiac events at 6 months were less frequent in titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents than in control stent–treated patients (7% versus 27%, P=0.02), largely driven by a reduced need for target-lesion revascularization (7% versus 23%, P=0.07). Conclusions—Revascularization with titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents is safe and effective in patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions. Titanium-nitride-oxide–coated stents reduce restenosis and major adverse cardiac events compared with stainless steel stents of otherwise identical design.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Effect of high-intensity statin therapy on atherosclerosis in non-infarct-related coronary arteries (IBIS-4): a serial intravascular ultrasonography study

AIM The effect of long-term high-intensity statin therapy on coronary atherosclerosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of high-intensity statin therapy on plaque burden, composition, and phenotype in non-infarct-related arteries of STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS Between September 2009 and January 2011, 103 STEMI patients underwent intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS) and radiofrequency ultrasonography (RF-IVUS) of the two non-infarct-related epicardial coronary arteries (non-IRA) after successful primary PCI. Patients were treated with high-intensity rosuvastatin (40 mg/day) throughout 13 months and serial intracoronary imaging with the analysis of matched segments was available for 82 patients with 146 non-IRA. The primary IVUS end-point was the change in per cent atheroma volume (PAV). After 13 months, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) had decreased from a median of 3.29 to 1.89 mmol/L (P < 0.001), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels had increased from 1.10 to 1.20 mmol/L (P < 0.001). PAV of the non-IRA decreased by -0.9% (95% CI: -1.56 to -0.25, P = 0.007). Patients with regression in at least one non-IRA were more common (74%) than those without (26%). Per cent necrotic core remained unchanged (-0.05%, 95% CI: -1.05 to 0.96%, P = 0.93) as did the number of RF-IVUS defined thin cap fibroatheromas (124 vs. 116, P = 0.15). CONCLUSION High-intensity rosuvastatin therapy over 13 months is associated with regression of coronary atherosclerosis in non-infarct-related arteries without changes in RF-IVUS defined necrotic core or plaque phenotype among STEMI patients.

Current concepts on coronary revascularization in diabetic patients

Diabetic mellitus (DM) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are at higher risk of cardiovascular events compared with non-DM individuals. While aggressive cardiovascular prevention and adequate blood glucose control remain cornerstones of therapy, the decision when and how to proceed to coronary revascularization in an individual DM patient should be based on the extent of CAD, ischaemic burden, ventricular function, as well as comorbidities. While in patients with stable symptoms, moderate CAD on coronary angiography and preserved left ventricular function a conservative strategy may be a valuable initial strategy, in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) an early invasive approach should be favoured. The revascularization strategy for DM patients with complex multivessel CAD should be discussed within a heart team consisting of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anaesthesiologists. In general, the threshold for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) should be lower for DM than for non-DM individuals. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and--in the setting of ACS--of potent platelet inhibitors, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor, should be favoured. In the near future, multiple strategies may further favourably impact the prognosis of DM patients undergoing coronary revascularization. These include alternative antiplatelet agents such as thromboxane receptor inhibitors, the broad use of second generation DES, and possibly the implantation of bioresorbable stents. Coronary artery bypass surgery outcomes may also further improve by wide implementation of arterial revascularization, reduction in perioperative stroke by avoiding clamping of the aorta, reduction in wound infection by minimally invasive techniques, and optimization of post-operative medical management.