🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

Here’s my guide to navigate the #ACC25 trials, coming this weekend and featured in many journals with a (very) high impact factor. 1. WARRIOR = Intensive medical therapy in women with ANOCA/INOCA 2. STRIDE = Semaglutide in type 2 diabetes and peripheral artery disease 3. API-CAT

In the API-CAT trial, a reduced-dose regimen of apixaban (2.5 mg twice daily) was noninferior to a full-dose regimen (5.0 mg twice daily) with regard to the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer who had completed at least 6 months of

First day at #ACC25, here are the results of 10 trials presented today. I counted 3 NEJM, 1 Lancet, and 1 JAMA. WARRIOR: Intensive medical therapy did not reduce major CV events at five years in women with suspected INOCA. STRIDE: Semaglutide improved walking distance, symptoms,

The name ECLIPSE couldn’t have been more fitting for this trial—judging by the results, orbital atherectomy may soon fade into the shadows... at least for the type of calcified lesions enrolled, which still seem to be the very ones for which one would think of aggressive

Pitch darkness also for cerebral embolic protection during TAVI, with BHF PROTECT-TAVI—a second negative trial after PROTECTED TAVR. This device will now join mechanical thromboaspiration systems and bioresorbable scaffolds in the museum of inventions so ingenious that they

I don’t think the transitive property can be easily applied in interventional cardiology (or at least, a network meta-analysis would be needed), but if that were the case, then after the results of FLAVOUR II, I feel more confused than ever: iFR is noninferior to FFR for guiding

And here are finally the 5-year results of Evolut Low Risk, a trial in which the self-expanding prosthesis holds its own against surgery. A trial where, let’s remember, the average age was 74 years. For years, to the question: 'How long does a TAVI prosthesis last?' we didn’t

#ACC25 Day 2, here is the summary of today’s trials (I haven’t included the follow-up extensions of Evolut Low Risk, Triluminate, and FAME 3). Today, I counted at least 2 NEJM, 4 Lancet, 1 Nature, 1 JAMA, 1 Circulation, and 1 JACC. 1. MIGHTy-Heart = In-home paramedic visits for

Up to one-third of patients referred for transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention have a transvalvular pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. This document, commissioned by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the European Association of

Therapeutic anticoagulation prevents and treats thromboembolism but increases the risk of bleeding. Factor XI, crucial for thrombus expansion but less so for haemostasis, is a promising target. Our Review discusses the rationale, pharmacology, evidence and future directions of

REC-CAGEFREE II published. An interesting trial on a dedicated antiplatelet strategy for ACS patients (n=1948) treated with drug-coated balloons. The tested strategy is somewhat complex and features a de-escalation by discontinuation and a (supposed) de-escalation by unguided

COMPARE-TAVI 1 now published in The Lancet. I chaired the session where it was presented at PCR London Valves 2024, but the allocated time was so short that I must admit I did not understand much. Now, everything is clearer: in this trial using the smallest (5.3%) non-inferiority

Relevant calcified coronary artery disease may be present in ~20% of patients undergoing PCI, and it is known to add procedural challenges and risks. This State-of-the-Art review aims to present the contemporary clinical approach and procedural planning for patients with

A few points on where we are with Factor XI inhibitors in atrial fibrillation: 1) No evidence of efficacy for thrombotic events has been demonstrated to date 2) The OCEANIC-AF trial indicated a reduction in bleeding with asundexian compared to apixaban. However, the trial has

The DanGer Shock trial showed different results compared to the IABP-SHOCK II and ECLS-SHOCK trials. This discrepancy may be due to differences in patient populations, timing of the primary endpoint, and the level of hemodynamic support provided. Fewer patients in DanGer Shock