Platelet Reactivity and Clinical Outcomes After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Results From the PTRG-DES Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The long-term prognostic implication of platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not clearly known. OBJECTIVES: The impacts of platelet reactivity from the PTRG-DES consortium were assessed. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including MACCE and bleeding. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2018, a total of 11,714 patients were enrolled and grouped into tertiles according to P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs): high PRUs (≥253), intermediate PRUs (188-252), and low PRUs (<188). The Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates of the primary outcome were significantly different across the groups; the high-PRU group showed the highest MACCE rate at 5 years (12.9%, 11.1%, and 7.0% in high-, intermediate-, and low-PRU groups, respectively; P < 0.001), as well as at 1 year (P < 0.001). The high-PRU group had the greatest KM estimates of all-cause death (8.2%, 5.9%, and 3.7%, respectively; P < 0.001) at 5 years without significant differences of major bleeding, and resultant of a higher KM estimates of NACE (15.7%, 13.6%, and 9.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). A PRU ≥252, the best cutoff value, was strongly related to MACCE (HR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.11-1.74; P = 0.003) and all-cause death at 5 years after PCI (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04-1.94; P = 0.026). The optimal cutoff value of aspirin reaction units predicting the MACCE occurrence was ≥414 and was significantly associated with 5-year MACCE occurrence or all-cause death (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale cohort, high PRU was significantly associated with occurrence of MACCE, all-death death, and NACE at 5 years, as well as 1 year after PCI. (PTRG-DES Consortium [PTRG]; NCT04734028).

Effect of Ticagrelor on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (HEALING-AMI).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on left ventricular (LV) remodeling after reperfusion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in humans. BACKGROUND: Animal studies have demonstrated that ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel better protects myocardium against reperfusion injury and improves remodeling after myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial performed at 10 centers in Korea, patients were enrolled if they had naive STEMI successfully treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and at least 6-month planned duration of dual-antiplatelet treatment. The coprimary endpoints were LV remodeling index (LVRI) (a relative change of LV end-diastolic volume) measured on 3-dimensional echocardiography and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level at 6 months. RESULTS: Among initially enrolled patients with STEMI (n = 336), 139 in each group completed the study. LVRI at 6 months was numerically lower with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (0.6 ± 18.6% vs. 4.5 ± 16.5%; p = 0.095). Ticagrelor significantly reduced the 6-month level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (173 ± 141 pg/ml vs. 289 ± 585 pg/ml; p = 0.028). These differences were prominent in patients with pre-PCI TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow grade 0. By multivariate analysis, ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the risk for positive LV remodeling (LVRI >0%) (odds ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.95; p = 0.030). The LV end-diastolic volume index remained unchanged during ticagrelor treatment (from 54.7 ± 12.2 to 54.2 ± 12.2 ml/m2; p = 0.629), but this value increased over time during clopidogrel treatment (from 54.6 ± 11.3 to 56.4 ± 13.9 ml/m2; p = 0.056) (difference -2.3 ml/m2; 95% confidence interval: -4.8 to 0.2 ml/m2; p = 0.073). Ticagrelor reduced LV end-systolic volume index (from 27.0 ± 8.5 to 24.7 ± 8.4 ml/m2; p < 0.001), whereas no reduction was seen with clopidogrel (from 26.2 ± 8.9 to 25.6 ± 11.0 ml/m2; p = 0.366) (difference -1.8 ml/m2; 95% confidence interval: -3.5 to -0.1 ml/m2; p = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel for LV remodeling after reperfusion of STEMI with primary PCI. (High Platelet Inhibition With Ticagrelor to Improve Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [HEALING-AMI]; NCT02224534).

Angiographic outcomes of Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and Resolute Integrity durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents: results of the ORIENT trial.

AIMS: We performed a randomised controlled open-label non-inferiority trial to compare angiographic outcomes between the ultra-thin strut, biodegradable hybrid polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (O-SES) and the durable biocompatible polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 372 patients planned to undergo percutaneous coronary revascularisation were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with O-SES or R-ZES (250 and 122 patients, respectively). O-SES was non-inferior to R-ZES for the primary endpoint, in-stent late lumen loss at nine months (median 0.06 mm [interquartile range, -0.09 to 0.24 mm] versus 0.12 mm [-0.07 to 0.32 mm]; p for non-inferiority <0.001; p for superiority=0.205). Percent diameter stenosis was significantly lower in the O-SES group than in the R-ZES group (15.0 [10.0 to 20.0] versus 20.0 [13.3 to 26.0]; p=0.002). Target lesion failure occurred in 2.4% and 3.3% of the O-SES and R-ZES groups, respectively (p=0.621). Subgroup analyses showed consistently similar outcomes between the two groups in terms of the primary endpoint, except for the diabetic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: O-SES was non-inferior to R-ZES in terms of in-stent late loss at nine months. Angiographic restenosis and clinical adverse events were low in both groups. This study confirms the good safety and efficacy profiles of both contemporary coronary stents.

Reasonable duration of Clopidogrel use after drug-eluting stent implantation in Korean patients.

Current guidelines recommend that clopidogrel be given to patients for 12 months after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. However, the evidence is insufficient to support the benefit of long-term clopidogrel therapy, especially in Asian patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether different durations of clopidogrel use might influence long-term outcomes after DES implantation. A total of 844 patients from 4 medical centers in Korea who had undergone successful DES implantation from November 2004 to April 2006 were enrolled. Patients who were event free at 6-month follow-up were divided into 2 groups by clopidogrel use (575 users, 163 nonusers) and followed. The end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. During 1,056.4 patient-years of follow-up (median 2.02), there were 7 deaths, 3 myocardial infarctions, and 2 episodes of stent thrombosis. No significant differences in the primary end point were observed between clopidogrel users and nonusers (cumulative incidence 2.9% vs 2.8%, p = 0.578; adjusted hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 2.77). In analysis with time-dependent covariates, the incidence rates of the primary end point during observation periods with and without clopidogrel were similar, although the effect estimates were broad (9.9 with and 10.6 without clopidogrel per 1,000 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 3.17). Interestingly, the effect estimates from propensity score analyses, although they also had wide confidence intervals, were closer to the null than those from conventional Cox analyses. In conclusion, this cohort of Korean patients failed to show an absolute benefit of long-term clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation. The benefit of clopidogrel use beyond 6 months after DES implantation remains uncertain, and hence the decision to use long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy should be based on the risk factors of each patient.