Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study.

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS.

Pre-hospital evaluation of chest pain patients using the modified HEART-score: rationale and design.

Background: This study assesses how ambulance paramedics using the modified HEART-score with a point-of-care cardiac troponin (cTn) compare to the emergency physicians using the modified HEART-score with a high-sensitive cTn (hs-cTn) in patients with suspected non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), focusing on interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance. Methods: In this prospective multicenter cohort, we compare four cTn testing strategies (serial point of care and hs-cTn cTn measurement) with and without the HEART-score. Outcomes include the HEART-score's interobserver agreement, NSTE-ACS at discharge, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after 30 days, and diagnostic accuracy of the different strategies. Conclusion: The POPular HEART study aims to improve NSTE-ACS diagnostic pathways, promoting pre-hospital detection and ruling out of NSTE-ACS to minimize unnecessary hospitalizations and associated costs.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04851418 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

What & why? Many people visit the emergency department (ED) due to chest pain, often worried about the possibility of a heart attack. While acute heart attacks can often be detected through an electrocardiogram (ECG; a test of the heart's electrical activity), a significant number of patients with a heart attack have a normal ECG. These patients require further testing to measure cardiac troponin (cTn; an indicator of heart damage) in the hospital to rule out a heart attack, known as non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). To improve diagnosis and care for these patients, we compared two approaches: ambulance paramedics using a quick bedside cTn test and the HEART-score, versus hospital doctors using a more sensitive cTn test with the HEART-score. The HEART score combines factors like the patient's medical history, ECG results, age, risk factors, and cTn levels to assess the risk of heart problems. In this comparison, the key difference lies in how cTn levels are measured ­ either through a quick finger prick test in an ambulance using a point-of-care device or a more detailed analysis in a hospital laboratory.How? We focused on patients visited by emergency medical services for chest pain suspected of a heart attack and transported to the hospital. We assessed the quick bedside test by paramedics and the detailed hospital test by doctors, alongside the use of the HEART score in both settings. Our evaluation looked at the agreement between these methods and their effectiveness in identifying or excluding an NSTE-ACS.What? Our research, known as the POPular HEART study, seeks to simplify the early identification or rule-out of an NSTE-ACS in patients with chest pain directly by ambulance. This approach aims to decrease unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce healthcare costs.Main points We're exploring innovative methods to safely identify patients with a very low risk of NSTE-ACS in individuals with chest pain outside the hospital. Our objective is to safely minimize hospital admissions that may not be necessary, thereby saving resources. By doing so, we aim to alleviate the pressure on EDs and contribute to more cost-effective healthcare.

CYP2C9 Polymorphisms and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients Treated with Clopidogrel: Combined Data from the POPular Genetics and POPular AGE Trials.

BACKGROUND: The cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 enzyme plays a role in the metabolization of clopidogrel. Carriage of a CYP2C9 loss-of-function (LoF) allele has been associated with attenuated pharmacokinetics, leading to a diminished pharmacodynamic response and increased risk for developing stent thrombosis in patients treated with clopidogrel. METHODS: In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of the CYP2C9*2 and *3 LoF alleles on thrombotic events. Therefore, a post hoc analysis was performed in 878 patients with available CYP2C9 genotype status included in the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials, which enrolled patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, respectively. The primary thrombotic outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. RESULTS: A total of 526 (60%) patients were CYP2C9 LoF allele noncarriers and 352 (40%) were CYP2C9 LoF allele (*2 or *3) carriers. After correction for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences between CYP2C9 LoF allele carriers and noncarriers for the combined thrombotic outcome (6.3% vs. 5.9%, hazard ratio 1.16 [0.67-2.0], p = 0.60), or the individual thrombotic outcomes. Moreover, no differences were seen in the event rates for clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 2-5 bleeding) as well as major bleeding (BARC 3 or 5 bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: Carriers of a CYP2C9 *2 or *3 LoF allele presenting with acute coronary syndrome and treated with clopidogrel did not have an increased risk for thrombotic events compared with noncarriers. Given the limited number of poor metabolizers, no firm conclusions could be drawn with regard to the thrombotic risk for patients carrying two CYP2C9 LoF alleles.

The Clinical Implementation of CYP2C19 Genotyping in Patients with an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the FORCE-ACS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, these P2Y12 inhibitors increase bleeding risk compared to clopidogrel. Although genotype-guided P2Y12-inhibitor selection has been shown to reduce bleeding risk, data on its clinical implementation is lacking. METHODS: The study included ACS patients receiving genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy, utilising either a point-of-care (POC) device or laboratory-based testing. We aimed to collect qualitative and quantitative data on genotyping, eligibility for de-escalation, physician adherence to genotype results, time to de-escalation and cost reduction. RESULTS: Of the 1,530 patients included in the ACS registry from 2021 to 2023, 738 ACS patients treated with ticagrelor received a CYP2C19 genotype test. The median turnover time of genotyping was 6.3 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 3.2-16.7), with 82.3% of the genotyping results known within 24 hours after admission. POC genotyping exhibited significantly shorter turnaround times compared to laboratory-based testing (with respective medians of 5.7 vs 47.8 hours; P < .001). Of the genotyped patients, 81.7% were eligible for de-escalation which was carried out within 24 hours in 70.9% and within 48 h in 93.0%. The time to de-escalation was significantly shorter using POC (25.4 hours) compared to laboratory-based testing (58.9 hours; P < .001). Implementing this strategy led to a reduction of €211,150.50 in medication costs. CONCLUSIONS: CYP2C19 genotype-guided-de-escalation in an all-comers ACS population is feasible. POC genotyping leads to shorter turnaround times and quicker de-escalation. Time to de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in noncarriers was short, with high physician adherence to genotype results.

Impact of recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the FORCE-ACS registry.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events during follow-up. Our study aimed to quantify and compare the impact of these adverse events on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Data from patients with ACS prospectively enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for this study. The primary ischaemic and bleeding events of interest were hospital readmission for ACS and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3 bleeding during 12 months follow-up. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 12-item Short Form Survey version 2 derived Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) scores at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 3339 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 27.9% women) were included. During follow-up, ischaemic events occurred in 202 patients (6.0%) and bleeding events in 565 patients (16.9%). After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, ischaemic events remained independently associated with lower QoL regardless of metric used. Bleeding was also independently associated with lower EQ-5D VAS and PCS scores, but not with a lower MCS score. The QoL decrement associated with ischaemic events was numerically larger than the decrement associated with bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Ischaemic and bleeding events remain prevalent and are independently associated with lower QoL at 12 months follow-up in patients previously admitted for ACS. The incidence and impact of these adverse events should be considered when balancing individual ischaemic and bleeding risks.

Conservative versus Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the International POPular Age Registry.

This registry assessed the impact of conservative and invasive strategies on major adverse clinical events (MACE) in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients aged ≥75 years with NSTEMI were prospectively registered from European centers and followed up for one year. Outcomes were compared between conservative and invasive groups in the overall population and a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort. MACE included cardiovascular death, acute coronary syndrome, and stroke. The study included 1190 patients (median age 80 years, 43% female). CAG was performed in 67% (N = 798), with two-thirds undergoing revascularization. Conservatively treated patients had higher baseline risk. After propensity score matching, 319 patient pairs were successfully matched. MACE occurred more frequently in the conservative group (total population 20% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.77, p = 0.001), remaining significant in the PSM cohort (18% vs. 12%, adjHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81, p = 0.004). In conclusion, an early invasive strategy was associated with benefits over conservative management in elderly patients with NSTEMI. Risk factors associated with ischemia and bleeding should guide strategy selection rather than solely relying on age.

[Genotype-guided antithrombotic therapy]. / Genotypegeleide trombocytenaggregatieremming.

Although current literature indicates both a clinical and a cost-effective benefit of routine genotype-guided treatment of patients treated with clopidogrel, this strategy is not recommended in guidelines. In cardiology, but also in neurology and vascular surgery, the current scientific evidence for this is still insufficient. Nevertheless, the role of pharmacogenetics will gain importance in today's medical world, where the demand for personalised medicine is on the rise. The implementation of genotyping in the clinic will nonetheless be a practical challenge due to a lack of clarity about who will bear the associated costs. In patients with coronary artery disease and a higher bleeding risk, it is valuable to determine the CYP2C19 genotype prior to treatment with clopidogrel. Pending further studies, we recommend that specialists prescribing clopidogrel should determine the CYP2C19 genotype in patients at high risk of recurrent ischemic events.

Effects of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5 on clinical outcome in patients treated with ticagrelor for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: POPular Genetics sub-study.

Aims: To determine the clinical efficacy, adverse events and side-effect dyspnea of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5 expressor status in ticagrelor treated patients. Methods and results: Ticagrelor treated patients from the POPular Genetics randomized controlled trial were genotyped for CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5*3 alleles. Patients were divided based on their genotype. In total 1,281 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included. CYP3A4*22 carriers (n = 152) versus CYP3A4*22 non-carrier status (n = 1,129) were not found to have a significant correlation with the primary thrombotic endpoint: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis and stroke [1.3% vs. 2.5%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.81 (0.43-7.62) p = 0.42], or the primary bleeding endpoint: PLATO major and minor bleeding [13.2% vs. 11.3%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.93 (0.58-1.50) p = 0.77]. Among the CYP3A4*1/*1 patients, CYP3A5 expressors (n = 196) versus non-expressors (n = 926) did not show a significant difference for the primary thrombotic [2.6% vs. 2.5%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 (0.39-2.71) p = 0.95], or the primary bleeding endpoint [12.8% vs. 10.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.13 (0.73-1.76) p = 0.58]. With respect to dyspnea, no significant difference was observed between CYP3A4*22 carriers versus CYP3A4*22 non-carriers [44.0% vs. 45.0%, odds ratio 1.04 (0.45-2.42) p = 0.93], or in the CYP3A4*1/*1 group, CYP3A5 expressors versus CYP3A5 non-expressors [35.3% vs. 47.8%, odds ratio 0.60 (0.27-1.30) p = 0.20]. Conclusion: In STEMI patients treated with ticagrelor, neither the CYP3A4*22 carriers, nor the CYP3A5 expressor status had a statistical significant effect on thrombotic and bleeding event rates nor on dyspnea. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01761786.

External validation of the GRACE risk score and the risk-treatment paradox in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk-treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Data from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined. RESULTS: Discriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk.

Risk Assessment Using Risk Scores in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Risk scores are widely used in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) prior to treatment decision-making at different points in time. At initial hospital presentation, risk scores are used to assess the risk for developing major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and can guide clinicians in either discharging the patients at low risk or swiftly admitting and treating the patients at high risk for MACE. During hospital admission, risk assessment is performed to estimate mortality, residual ischemic and bleeding risk to guide further in-hospital management (e.g., timing of coronary angiography) and post-discharge management (e.g., duration of dual antiplatelet therapy). In the months and years following ACS, long term risk can also be assessed to evaluate current treatment strategies (e.g., intensify or reduce pharmaceutical treatment options). As multiple risk scores have been developed over the last decades, this review summarizes the most relevant risk scores used in ACS patients.

Rationale and Design of the Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) Registry: Towards "Personalized Medicine" in Daily Clinical Practice.

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients.