Dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in acute coronary syndrome: an individual patient meta-analysis.

AIMS: Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). De-escalation of the potent P2Y12 inhibtor is an appealing concept to balance the ischaemic and bleeding risks after PCI. An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed to compare de-escalation versus standard DAPT in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database, were searched to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the de-escalation strategy with the standard DAPT after PCI in patients with ACS. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The co-primary endpoints of interest were the ischaemic composite endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events) and bleeding endpoint (any bleeding) at 1-year post-PCI. Four RCTs (the TROPICAL-ACS, POPular Genetics, HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, and TALOS-AMI trials) including 10 133 patients were analysed. The ischaemic endpoint was significantly lower in the patients assigned to the de-escalation strategy than in those assigned to the standard strategy (2.3% vs. 3.0%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.761, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.597-0.972, log rank P = 0.029). Bleeding was also significantly lower in the de-escalation strategy group (6.5% vs. 9.1%, HR 0.701, 95% CI 0.606-0.811, log rank P < 0.001). No significant intergroup differences were observed in terms of all-cause death and major bleeding events. Subgroup analyses revealed that compared to guided de-escalation, unguided de-escalation had a significantly larger impact on bleeding endpoint reduction (P for interaction = 0.007); no intergroup differences were observed for the ischaemic endpoints. CONCLUSION: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, DAPT-based de-escalation was associated with both decreased ischaemic and bleeding endpoints. Reduction in bleeding endpoints was more prominent for the unguided than the guided de-escalation strategy. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021245477).

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial.

AIMS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-infarct-related artery reduces death or MI. However, whether selective PCI guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is superior to routine PCI guided by angiography alone is unclear. The current trial sought to compare FFR-guided PCI with angiography-guided PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions among patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful PCI of the infarct-related artery were randomly assigned to either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis of >50%) for non-infarct-related artery lesions. The primary end point was a composite of time to death, MI, or repeat revascularization. A total of 562 patients underwent randomization. Among them, 60.0% underwent immediate PCI for non-infarct-related artery lesions and 40.0% were treated by a staged procedure during the same hospitalization. PCI was performed for non-infarct-related artery in 64.1% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 97.1% in the angiography-guided PCI group, and resulted in significantly fewer stent used in the FFR-guided PCI group (2.2 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 0.9, P < 0.001). At a median follow-up of 3.5 years (interquartile range: 2.7-4.1 years), the primary end point occurred in 18 patients of 284 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 40 of 278 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group (7.4% vs. 19.7%; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.75; P = 0.003). The death occurred in five patients (2.1%) in the FFR-guided PCI group and in 16 patients (8.5%) in the angiography-guided PCI group; MI in seven (2.5%) and 21 (8.9%), respectively; and unplanned revascularization in 10 (4.3%) and 16 (9.0%), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute MI and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of selective PCI using FFR-guided decision-making was superior to a strategy of routine PCI based on angiographic diameter stenosis for treatment of non-infarct-related artery lesions regarding the risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.

Unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in stabilised patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TALOS-AMI): an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving potent antiplatelet therapy, the bleeding risk remains high during the maintenance phase. We sought data on a uniform unguided de-escalation strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) from ticagrelor to clopidogrel after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this open-label, assessor-masked, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial (TALOS-AMI), patients at 32 institutes in South Korea with acute myocardial infarction receiving aspirin and ticagrelor without major ischaemic or bleeding events during the first month after index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a de-escalation (clopidogrel plus aspirin) or active control (ticagrelor plus aspirin) group. Unguided de-escalation without a loading dose of clopidogrel was adopted when switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding type 2, 3, or 5 according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria from 1 to 12 months. A non-inferiority test was done to assess the safety and efficacy of de-escalation DAPT compared with standard treatment. The hazard ratio (HR) for de-escalation versus active control group in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for non-inferiority by means of an HR margin of 1·34, which equates to an absolute difference of 3·0% in the intention-to-treat population and, if significant, a superiority test was done subsequently. To ensure statistical robustness, additional analyses were also done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02018055. FINDINGS: From Feb 26, 2014, to Dec 31, 2018, from 2901 patients screened, 2697 patients were randomly assigned: 1349 patients to de-escalation and 1348 to active control groups. At 12 months, the primary endpoints occurred in 59 (4·6%) in the de-escalation group and 104 (8·2%) patients in the active control group (pnon-inferiority<0·001; HR 0·55 [95% CI 0·40-0·76], psuperiority=0·0001). There was no significant difference in composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between de-escalation (2·1%) and the active control group (3·1%; HR 0·69; 95% CI 0·42-1·14, p=0·15). Composite of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding occurred less frequently in the de-escalation group (3·0% vs 5·6%, HR 0·52; 95% CI 0·35-0·77, p=0·0012). INTERPRETATION: In stabilised patients with acute myocardial infarction after index PCI, a uniform unguided de-escalation strategy significantly reduced the risk of net clinical events up to 12 months, mainly by reducing the bleeding events. FUNDING: ChongKunDang Pharm, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific.

QFR Assessment and Prognosis After Nonculprit PCI in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy can improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, there is concern that angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may result in un-necessary PCI of the non-infarct-related artery (non-IRA), and its long-term prognosis is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes after non-IRA PCI according to the quantitative flow ratio (QFR). METHODS: We performed post hoc QFR analysis of non-IRA lesions of AMI patients enrolled in the FRAME-AMI (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease) trial, which randomly allocated 562 patients into either FFR-guided PCI (FFR ≤0.80) or angiography-guided PCI (diameter stenosis >50%) for non-IRA lesions. Patients were classified by non-IRA QFR values into the QFR ≤0.80 and QFR >0.80 groups. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (552 lesions) were eligible for QFR analysis. Of 209 patients in the angiography-guided PCI group, 30.0% (n = 60) underwent non-IRA PCI despite having QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. Conversely, only 2.7% (n = 4) among 209 patients in the FFR-guided PCI group had QFR >0.80 in the non-IRA. At a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the rate of MACEs was significantly higher among patients with non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 than in patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 3.1%; HR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.10-15.57; P = 0.036). Non-IRA PCI despite QFR >0.80 was associated with a higher risk of non-IRA MACEs than patients with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions (12.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 5.44; 95% CI: 1.13-26.19; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI patients with multivessel disease, 30.0% of angiography-guided PCI resulted in un-necessary PCI for the non-IRA with QFR >0.80, which was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs than in those with deferred PCI for non-IRA lesions. (FFR Versus Angiography-Guided Strategy for Management of AMI With Multivessel Disease [FRAME-AMI] ClinicalTrials.gov number; NCT02715518).

Prognosis and the Effect of De-Escalation of Antiplatelet Therapy After Nuisance Bleeding in Patients With Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding prognosis and management after nuisance bleeding (NB) is limited. The purpose was to examine the prognostic significance of NB in patients receiving potent dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) after acute myocardial infarction and the impact of de-escalation of DAPT on clinical outcomes thereafter. METHODS: From the TALOS-AMI trial (Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Stabilized Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)' 2583 patients were used to investigate the clinical impact of NB (defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 1 bleeding) during 1-month treatment with ticagrelor-based DAPT after acute myocardial infarction. We assessed the associations between NB within 1 month and BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular event (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) from 1 to 12 months. We also evaluated the effect of de-escalation to clopidogrel in patients with or without NB. RESULTS: NB occurred in 416 patients (16.7%) after 1 month of ticagrelor-based DAPT. At 1 year, NB was not associated with increase in BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (hazard ratio [HR]' 1.29 [95% CI' 0.7-2.14]) and major adverse cardiovascular event (HR' 1.72 [95% CI' 0.87-3.39]). However, patients with NB had an increased risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 6 months (HR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.08-3.48]; P=0.026), which diminished over the next 6 months. De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel reduced the incidence of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in NB (HR' 0.31 [95% CI' 0.10-0.92]) and non-NB patients (HR' 0.58 [95% CI' 0.37-0.90]) without heterogeneity (P interaction=0.291). There was no increase in major adverse cardiovascular event after DAPT de-escalation, irrespective of NB. CONCLUSIONS: NB was frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction on 1-month ticagrelor-based DAPT and was associated with an early increase of bleeding. DAPT de-escalation after NB may reduce bleeding without increasing ischemic events. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02018055.

Impact of Low Baseline Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol on Long-Term Postdischarge Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background Real-world data on low baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and long-term postdischarge cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome are limited. Methods and Results Of the 10 719 patients enrolled in the Korean registry of acute myocardial infarction between January 2004 and August 2014, we identified 5532 patients who were event free from death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or stroke during the in-hospital period after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. The co-primary outcomes were 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death) and cardiovascular death at 5 years. Of 5532 patients with acute myocardial infarction (mean age, 62.1±12.8 years; 75.0% men), 446 cardiovascular deaths (8.1%) and 695 three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (12.6%) occurred at 5 years. In the continuous analysis of LDL-C, the risk of cardiovascular events increased steeply as LDL-C levels decreased from 100 mg/dL. For categorical analysis of LDL-C (<70, 70-99, and ≥100 mg/dL), as LDL-C levels decreased, clinical outcomes worsened (237/3759 [6.3%] in LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL versus 123/1291 [9.5%] in LDL-C 70-99 mg/dL versus 86/482 [17.8%] in LDL-C <70 mg/dL for cardiovascular death; P-trend<0.001; and 417/3759 [11.1%] in LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL versus 172/1291 [13.3%] in LDL-C 70-99 mg/dL versus 106/482 [22.2%] in LDL-C <70 mg/dL for 3-point major adverse cardiovascular event; P-trend<0.001). In a Cox time-to-event multivariable model with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL as the reference, the baseline LDL-C level <70 mg/dL was independently associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.30-2.17]) and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular event (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.10-1.71]). Conclusions In this Korean acute myocardial infarction registry, the baseline LDL-C level <70 mg/dL was significantly associated with an increased incidence of long-term cardiovascular events after discharge. (COREA [Cardiovascular Risk and Identification of Potential High-Risk Population]-Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry; NCT02806102). Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT02806102.

Impact of Intravascular Ultrasound on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: IVUS-guided PCI has been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. However, the beneficial effect of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI in the drug-eluting stent era remains unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents were selected from 10,719 patients enrolled in a multicenter AMI registry. The included patients were classified into 2 groups according to the use or nonuse of IVUS. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, during long-term follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 9,846 patients were treated with IVUS-guided PCI (n = 2,032) or angiography-guided PCI (n = 7,814). IVUS-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE (HR: 0.779; 95% CI: 0.689-0.880; P < 0.001). The results were consistent after multivariable regression and propensity score matching. One-year landmark analysis showed a lower risk for MACE within 1 year (HR: 0.766; 95% CI: 0650-0.903; P = 0.002) and beyond 1 year (HR: 0.796; 95% CI: 0663-0.956; P = 0.014) after index PCI. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IVUS was associated with better long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The clinical benefit of IVUS was maintained both within and beyond 1 year after index PCI. The use of IVUS in PCI should be considered for patients with AMI.