Practical issues in clinical scenarios involving CKD patients requiring antithrombotic therapy in light of the 2017 ESC guideline recommendations

Abstract

BackgroundThe choice of the most appropriate antithrombotic regimen that balances ischemic and bleeding risks was addressed by the August 2017 European Society of Cardiologists (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Focused Update recommendations, which propose new evaluation scores and protocols for patients requiring a coronary stent or patients with an acute coronary syndrome, atrial fibrillation, or a high bleeding risk and indication for oral anticoagulation therapy.DiscussionNumerous questions remain regarding antithrombotic regimens and risk management algorithms for both ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in various clinical scenarios. Limitations of current studies include a general ack of advanced CKD patients in major randomized controlled trials, of evidence on algorithm implementation, and of robust assessment tools for hemorrhagic risk. Herein, we aim to analyze the ESC Update recommendations and the newly implemented risk scores (DAPT, PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS) from the point of view of CKD, providing suggestions on drug choice (which combination has the best evidence), dosage, and duration (the same or different as for non-CKD population) of antithrombotics, as well as to identify current shortcomings and to envision directions of future research.ConclusionWe provide an evidence-based perspective on the new proposed bleeding management protocol, with focus on the CKD population. Despite previous important steps on antithrombotic therapy of renal patients, there remain many unsolved questions for which our suggestions could fundament new randomized controlled trials and specific protocols.

Prognostic nutritional index may not be a good prognostic indicator for acute myocardial infarction

“…Besides, lymphocytopenia acts as a marker for ongoing nonspecific atherosclerotic inflammatory processes. AMI is an acute inflammatory, thrombotic disease and closed related to blood lipid, thus many studies emphasized that the early recognition and management is important to improve prognosis of patients with AMI 2,38,39 .…”

“…The annual incidence of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) varies between 90-312/100,000 per year in Europe 1 . Through the advent of modern antithrombotic therapy 2 , secondary prevention, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 3,4 , there has been a decrease in acute and long-term mortality due to cardiac causes; however, the one-year mortality due to ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is approximately 10% 5 . Thus, early risk stratification management has been utilized, and many risk predictive indicators have been applied to predict the short- and long-term prognosis of patients with AMI 6,7 .…”

<p>Barthel Index as a Predictor of Mortality in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Better Activities of Daily Living, Better Prognosis</p>

“… 1 The emergence of advanced antithrombotic therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has dramatically reduced acute and long-term deaths. 2 However, despite this, the one-year mortality of ACS still remains around 10%. 3 The identification of high-risk patients with ACS is important for therapeutic decision-making and benefits prognosis-improving.…”

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

“…It is estimated that 5% of patients have or develop AF within the first months after diagnosis of cancer (35). Thromboembolic risk is increased in various types of cancer, with the greatest elevation in the pancreas, ovary, brain and lung cancers, and hematological neoplasms.…”