RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database houses medical device reports of adverse events involving medical devices marketed in the United States submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by mandatory and voluntary reporters. The MAUDE database is frequently used in clinical studies to report on device-related complications. Data about its efficacy are scarce. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the mandatory MAUDE database (MAUDE group) with the invitation-based POTTER-AF study (POTTER-AF 1 group) regarding data quality, procedural characteristics, diagnosis, treatment, and survival. METHODS: The reports of esophageal fistula esophageal fistula following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in the MAUDE database were compared with those in the POTTER-AF study between August 1, 2009, and August 31, 2019. RESULTS: Esophageal fistulas were reported in 47 patients in the MAUDE group and in 81 in the POTTER-AF 1 group. Procedures were performed with radiofrequency, cryoenergy, or laser energy in 66.0%, 31.9%, and 2.1% (MAUDE group) and in 96.3%, 2.5%, and 1.2% (POTTER-AF 1 group). The median time to symptoms was 21 (14, 32.5) days (MAUDE group) and 18.0 (6.8, 22.3) days (POTTER-AF 1 group; P = .031). The diagnostic method was reported in 38.3% of patients in the MAUDE group and in 98.8% in the POTTER-AF 1 group, the treatment in 57.4% and 100%, and the outcome in all patients. In the MAUDE group, treatment was surgical (51.9%), endoscopic (37.0%), combined (3.7%), or conservative (7.4%), compared with 43.2%, 19.8%, 7.4%, and 29.6% in the POTTER-AF 1 group. Overall mortality was 76.6% in the MAUDE group and 61.7% in the POTTER-AF 1 group (P = .118). CONCLUSION: In the mandatory MAUDE database, fewer esophageal fistula cases were reported compared with an invitation-based study. The data quality in the MAUDE database was significantly poorer.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Among patients treated with a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), combination therapy with clopidogrel (ie, known as dual antithrombotic therapy [DAT]) is the treatment of choice. However, there are concerns for individuals with impaired response to clopidogrel. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of clopidogrel vs low-dose ticagrelor in patients with impaired clopidogrel response assessed by the ABCD-GENE score. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized PD study of NOAC-treated patients undergoing PCI. Patients with an ABCD-GENE score ≥10 (n = 39), defined as having impaired clopidogrel response, were randomized to low-dose ticagrelor (n = 20; 60 mg twice a day) or clopidogrel (n = 19; 75 mg once a day). Patients with an ABCD-GENE score <10 (n = 42) were treated with clopidogrel (75 mg once a day; control cohort). PD assessments at baseline and 30 days post-randomization (trough and peak) were performed to assess P2Y12 signaling (VerifyNow P2Y12 reaction units [PRU], light transmittance aggregometry, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein); makers of thrombosis not specific to P2Y12 signaling were also assessed. The primary endpoint was PRU (trough levels) at 30 days. RESULTS: At 30 days, PRU levels were reduced with ticagrelor-based DAT compared with clopidogrel-based DAT at trough (23.0 [Q1-Q3: 3.0-46.0] vs 154.5 [Q1-Q3: 77.5-183.0]; P < 0.001) and peak (6.0 [Q1-Q3: 4.0-14.0] vs 129.0 [Q1-Q3: 66.0-171.0]; P < 0.001). Trough PRU levels in the control arm (104.0 [Q1-Q3: 35.0-167.0]) were higher than ticagrelor-based DAT (P = 0.005) and numerically lower than clopidogrel-based DAT (P = 0.234). Results were consistent by light transmittance aggregometry and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein. Markers measuring other pathways leading to thrombus formation were largely unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: In NOAC-treated patients undergoing PCI with an ABCD-GENE score ≥10, ticagrelor-based DAT using a 60-mg, twice-a-day regimen reduced platelet P2Y12 reactivity compared with clopidogrel-based DAT. (Tailoring P2Y12 Inhibiting Therapy in Patients Requiring Oral Anticoagulation After PCI [SWAP-AC-2]; NCT04483583).
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes , Clopidogrel , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria , Antagonistas del Receptor Purinérgico P2Y , Receptores Purinérgicos P2Y12 , Ticagrelor , Humanos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Ticagrelor/efectos adversos , Ticagrelor/administración & dosificación , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Femenino , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Clopidogrel/administración & dosificación , Clopidogrel/efectos adversos , Antagonistas del Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/efectos adversos , Antagonistas del Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/efectos adversos , Administración Oral , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Tiempo , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Receptores Purinérgicos P2Y12/efectos de los fármacos , Receptores Purinérgicos P2Y12/sangre , Pruebas de Función Plaquetaria , Agregación Plaquetaria/efectos de los fármacos , Fosfoproteínas/sangre , Plaquetas/efectos de los fármacos , Plaquetas/metabolismo , Proteínas de Microfilamentos/sangre , Proteínas de Microfilamentos/genética , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/sangre , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Moléculas de Adhesión Celular/sangre , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Terapia Antiplaquetaria Doble/efectos adversosAsunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Ablación por Catéter , Fístula Esofágica , Venas Pulmonares , Humanos , Datos Preliminares , Esófago/diagnóstico por imagen , Atrios Cardíacos/cirugía , Ablación por Catéter/efectos adversos , Fibrilación Atrial/cirugía , Fibrilación Atrial/patología , Fístula Esofágica/patología , Venas Pulmonares/cirugíaRESUMEN
Circulating lipoproteins may interact with platelets, increasing platelet sensitivity to aggregating agonists and their tendency towards activation and thrombus formation. In particular, patients with hypercholesterolemia exhibit a higher degree of platelet reactivity compared to normolipidemic. Moreover, accruing evidence report that lipid-lowering therapies can reduce thrombus formation, particularly in the absence of concomitant antiplatelet therapy. However, the underlying biological mechanism(s) explaining these clinical observations are not completely understood. Baseline platelet reactivity and high on-treatment platelet reactivity while on antiplatelet therapy (e.g., aspirin and clopidogrel) are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Therefore, strategies to reduce baseline platelet reactivity or improve the pharmacodynamic profile of antiplatelet therapies are an unmet clinical need. The potential use of lipid-lowering therapies for optimizing platelet reactivity provides several advantages as there is strong evidence that reducing circulating lipoproteins can improve clinical outcomes, and they may avoid the need for potent antiplatelet therapies that, although more effective, are associated with increased bleeding risk. This review will provide a systematic overview of the effects of lipid-lowering therapy on platelet reactivity in patients treated with and without antiplatelet therapy. We will focus on the potential biological mechanism(s) of action and the effect of statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitors, omega-3 fatty acids, and recombinant high-density lipoprotein on platelet reactivity. Ultimately, we will assess the current gaps in the literature and future perspective in the field.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A drug-drug interaction (DDI) may occur when transitioning from intravenous P2Y12 inhibition with cangrelor to oral P2Y12 inhibition with prasugrel. However, this has never been tested in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to rule out a DDI when cangrelor and prasugrel are concomitantly administered in PCI patients. METHODS: SWAP-6 (Switching Antiplatelet-6) was a prospective, randomized, 3-arm, open-label pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study. Patients (N = 77) were randomized to 1) prasugrel only at the start of PCI, 2) cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly at the start of PCI, or 3) cangrelor at the start of PCI plus prasugrel at the end of infusion. Cangrelor infusion was maintained for 2 hours. PK/PD assessments were performed at baseline and 6 time points postrandomization. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in VerifyNow (Werfen) P2Y12 reaction units measured at 4 hours after randomization between cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly administered vs prasugrel only. PK assessments included plasma levels of the active metabolite of prasugrel. RESULTS: Compared with prasugrel, cangrelor further enhances P2Y12 inhibitory effects. At 4 hours postrandomization, P2Y12 reaction unit levels were significantly lower with prasugrel only compared to cangrelor and prasugrel concomitantly administered (least squares means difference = 130; 95% CI: 85-176), failing to meet the prespecified noninferiority margin. Findings were corroborated by multiple PD assays. The active metabolite of prasugrel levels were not affected by concomitant administration of cangrelor and were low at the end of cangrelor infusion. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, concomitant administration of prasugrel with cangrelor leads to a marked increase in platelet reactivity after stopping cangrelor infusion, supporting the presence of a DDI. (Switching Antiplatelet Therapy-6 [SWAP-6]; NCT04668144).
Asunto(s)
Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria , Humanos , Clorhidrato de Prasugrel , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Antagonistas del Receptor Purinérgico P2Y , Pruebas de Función Plaquetaria , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
AIMS: To summarize published case reports of patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Brugada pattern electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist were followed. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus up until September 2021. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and management outcomes of COVID-19 patients with a Brugada pattern ECG were identified. RESULTS: A total of 18 cases were collected. The mean age was 47.1 years and 11.1% were women. No patients had prior confirmed diagnosis of Brugada syndrome. The most common presenting clinical symptoms were fever (83.3%), chest pain (38.8%), shortness of breath (38.8%), and syncope (16.6%). All 18 patients presented with type 1 Brugada pattern ECG. Four patients (22.2%) underwent left heart catheterization, and none demonstrated the presence of obstructive coronary disease. The most common reported therapies included antipyretics (55.5%), hydroxychloroquine (27.7%), and antibiotics (16.6%). One patient (5.5%) died during hospitalization. Three patients (16.6%) who presented with syncope received either an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or wearable cardioverter defibrillator at discharge. At follow-up, 13 patients (72.2%) had resolution of type 1 Brugada pattern ECG. CONCLUSION: COVID-19-associated Brugada pattern ECG seems relatively rare. Most patients had resolution of the ECG pattern once their symptoms have improved. Increased awareness and timely use of antipyretics is warranted in this population.