Effect of PEAR1, PTGS1 gene polymorphisms on the recurrence of aspirin-treated patients with ischemic stroke in the Han population of China: A 4-year follow-up study.

Platelet endothelial aggregation receptor 1 (PEAR1) and prostaglandin endoperoxide synthase 1 (PTGS1) polymorphisms can affect laboratory aspirin resistance. However, the impact of genetic polymorphisms on the recurrence of ischemic stroke (IS) patients treated with aspirin is not fully understood. This study aimed to examine the relationship between gene polymorphisms of PEAR1 and PTGS1 and IS recurrence in patients treated with aspirin. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 174 patients with nonrecurrent IS and 34 with recurrent IS after aspirin treatment. Follow-up was performed on all patients. PEAR1 rs12041331 and PTGS1 rs10306114 polymorphisms were determined using the PCR fluorescence probe method. And the correlations of them with the clinical characteristics were examined by multivariable logistic regression analysis. The distribution frequencies of PEAR1 rs12041331 and PTGS1 rs10306114 genotypes were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and there was no significant difference in the distribution of PEAR1 rs12041331 polymorphism. Compared to the nonrecurrent group, the AA genotype of the PTGS1 polymorphism was more frequent in the recurrent group (59.77% vs 35.29%, P = .003), and the A allele also showed a higher frequency than the G allele in the recurrent group (P = .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that smoking (OR = 5.228, 95% CI: 1.938-14.102, P = .001), coronary heart disease (OR = 4.754, 95% CI: 1.498-15.089, P = .008), and the polymorphism at PTGS1(A>G) AA/AG + GG (OR = 2.955, 95% CI: 1.320-6.616, P = .008) were independently associated with IS recurrence in Chinese patients. Our findings suggested that PTGS rs10306114 polymorphisms should receive more attention in the use of aspirin in patients with IS.

Acute ischemic stroke with a diagnosis of Marfan syndrome: A report of 3 cases in multifaceted settings.

RATIONALE: Marfan syndrome (MFS), which is a dominantly inherited connective tissue disease resulting from a mutation in the FBN1 gene, exhibits variable manifestations affecting the cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, ophthalmologic, and pulmonary systems. Notably, neurologic deficiency, which involves ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, is a rare but severe manifestation. The safety of rt-PA treatment for ischemic stroke caused by MFS is still under discussion. PATIENT CONCERNS: In the current report, we discuss 3 atypical MFS cases presented as acute ischemic stroke, compared to those exhibiting cardiovascular and musculoskeletal abnormalities. DIAGNOSES: Three patients were diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke accompanied by MFS based on clinical manifestations, imaging examinations, and genetic testings. INTERVENTIONS: The first case underwent intravenous thrombolytic therapy with rt-PA, the second case received antiplatelet therapy, and the third case received anticoagulant therapy and perfusion therapy. OUTCOMES: The neurologic deficiency of all three patients showed improvement upon discharge, and there were no symptoms of recurrence observed during the follow-up period. LESSONS SUBSECTIONS: MFS is a rare etiology in young people with embolic stroke of undetermined source. Physicians should take MFS into consideration when they observe the characteristic symptoms during a consultation. The potential pathogenesis of ischemic stroke secondary to MFS may include cardio-embolism, arterial dissection, and hypoperfusion. Although intravenous thrombolysis is a promising therapy to treat acute ischemic stroke, further examinations should be conducted to rule out contraindications in patients with a suspicion of MFS.

Risk factors and management of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with or without antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy: a multicenter real-world prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet and anticoagulation drugs complicate acute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) patients. Limited data about the risk factors and patient management has been presented. This study explored the association between previous antiplatelet or anticoagulant drug usage and clinical outcomes in GIB patients to improve awareness further and optimize treatment. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, non-interventional, real-world prospective study in 106 hospitals in 23 provinces in China. GIB patients confirmed in the emergency department were included and were grouped according to previous drug histories. Univariate analysis, multivariate logistic regression, and multivariate stratification models were performed separately to investigate the associations. RESULTS: A total of 2299 patients (57.23 ± 17.21 years old, 68.3% male) were included, of whom 20.1% and 2.9% received antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy, respectively. The all-cause 28-day mortality rates in patients without antiplatelet or anticoagulants, patients undergoing antiplatelet treatment, and patients with anticoagulation therapy were 2.8%, 4.6%, and 10.5%, respectively. After adjusting for confounding factors, both antiplatelet [odd ratio (OR), 2.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.48-5.76; p = 0.002] and anticoagulation therapy (OR, 8.87; 95% CI, 3.02-26.02; p < 0.001) were associated with higher 28-day mortality. In the subgroup analysis, blood transfusion, especially red blood cell transfusion, in patients undergoing antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy was associated with a decreased death risk. CONCLUSION: We confirmed an association between concurrent antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy in GIB patients and elevated 28-day mortality. Blood transfusions could improve poor outcomes in such patients.

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. RESULTS: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48-0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.

Safety and efficacy of stent-assisted coil embolization with periprocedural dual antiplatelet therapy for the treatment of acutely ruptured intracranial aneurysms.

PURPOSE: Despite growing evidence for the effectiveness of stent-assisted coil embolization (SAC) in treating acutely ruptured aneurysms, the safety of stent placement in acute phase remains controversial because of concerns for stent-induced thromboembolism and hemorrhagic events attributable to the necessity of antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, we investigated the safety and efficacy of SAC with periprocedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compared with the coiling-only technique to determine whether it is a promising treatment strategy for ruptured aneurysms. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 203 enrolled patients with acutely ruptured aneurysms, categorizing them into two groups: SAC and coiling-only groups. Comparative analyses between the two groups regarding angiographic results, clinical outcomes, and procedure-related complications were performed. A subgroup analysis of procedural complications was conducted on patients who did not receive chronic antithrombotic medications to alleviate their influence before hospitalization. RESULTS: 130 (64.0%) patients were treated using the coiling-only technique, whereas 73 (36.0%) underwent SAC. There was a trend to a higher complete obliteration rate (p = 0.061) and significantly lower recanalization rate (p = 0.030) at angiographic follow-up in the SAC group compared to the coiling-only group. Postprocedural cerebral infarction occurred less frequently in the SAC group (8.2%) than in the coiling-only group (17.7%), showing a significant difference (p = 0.044). Although the ventriculostomy-related hemorrhage rate was significantly higher in the SAC group than in the coiling-only group (26.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.031), the incidence of symptomatic ventriculostomy-related hemorrhage was comparable. Subgroup analysis excluding patients receiving chronic antithrombotic medications showed similar results. CONCLUSION: SAC with periprocedural DAPT could be a safe and effective treatment strategy for acutely ruptured aneurysms. Moreover, it might have a protective effect on postprocedural cerebral infarction without increasing the risk of symptomatic hemorrhagic complications.

Use of coronary artery calcium score and coronary CT angiography to guide cardiovascular prevention and treatment.

Currently, cardiovascular risk stratification to guide preventive therapy relies on clinical scores based on cardiovascular risk factors. However, the discriminative power of these scores is relatively modest. The use of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has surfaced as methods for enhancing the estimation of risk and potentially providing insights for personalized treatment in individual patients. CACS improves overall cardiovascular risk prediction and may be used to improve the yield of statin therapy in primary prevention, and possibly identify patients with a favorable risk/benefit relationship for antiplatelet therapies. CCTA holds promise to guide anti-atherosclerotic therapies and to monitor individual response to these treatments by assessing individual plaque features, quantifying total plaque volume and composition, and assessing peri-coronary adipose tissue. In this review, we aim to summarize current evidence regarding the use of CACS and CCTA for guiding lipid-lowering and antiplatelet therapy and discuss the possibility of using plaque burden and plaque phenotyping to monitor response to anti-atherosclerotic therapies.

Impact of Society Guidelines on Trends in Use of Newer P2Y12 Inhibitors for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, major society guidelines have recommended the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. It is unclear what impact these recommendations had on clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: All percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n=534 210) for acute coronary syndrome in England and Wales (April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2022) were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by choice of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine odds ratios of receipt of ticagrelor and prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) over time, and predictors of their receipt. Overall, there was a significant increase in receipt of newer P2Y12 inhibitors from 2010 to 2020 (2022 versus 2010: ticagrelor odds ratio, 8.12 [95% CI, 7.67-8.60]; prasugrel odds ratio, 6.14 [95% CI, 5.53-6.81]), more so in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction than non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome indication. The most significant increase in odds of receipt of prasugrel was observed between 2020 and 2022 (P<0.001), following a decline/plateau in its use in earlier years (2011-2019). In contrast, the odds of receipt of ticagrelor significantly increased in earlier years (2012-2017, Ptrend<0.001), after which the trend was stable (Ptrend=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 13-year-period, there has been a significant increase in use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors, although uptake of prasugrel use remained significantly lower than ticagrelor. Earlier society guidelines (pre-2017) were associated with the highest rates of ticagrelor use for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cases while the ISAR-REACT 5 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial and later society guidelines were associated with higher prasugrel use, mainly for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indication.

Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement to treat acute coronary syndromes, international clinical guidelines generally recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months to prevent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, data on single antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor earlier than 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with an acute coronary syndrome are scarce. The aim of this trial was to assess whether the use of ticagrelor alone, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding events without an accompanying increase in major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an acute coronary syndrome who completed the IVUS-ACS study and who had no major ischaemic or bleeding events after 1-month treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus oral aspirin (100 mg once daily) or oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus a matching oral placebo, beginning 1 month and ending at 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (11 months in total). Recruitment took place at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK. Patients were required to remain event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomisation was done using a web-based system, stratified by acute coronary syndrome type, diabetes, IVUS-ACS randomisation, and site, using dynamic minimisation. The primary superiority endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [known as BARC] types 2, 3, or 5). The primary non-inferiority endpoint was MACCE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6·2% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group and an absolute non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The two co-primary endpoints were tested sequentially; the primary superiority endpoint had to be met for hypothesis testing of the MACCE outcome to proceed. All principal analyses were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2019, and Oct 27, 2022, 3400 (97·0%) of the 3505 participants in the IVUS-ACS study were randomly assigned (1700 patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin and 1700 patients to ticagrelor plus placebo). 12-month follow-up was completed by 3399 (>99·9%) patients. Between month 1 and month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention, clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 35 patients (2·1%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 78 patients (4·6%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·30 to 0·66]; p<0·0001). MACCE occurred in 61 patients (3·6%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 63 patients (3·7%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (absolute difference -0·1% [95% CI -1·4% to 1·2%]; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·39]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, psuperiority=0·89). INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome who had percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents and remained event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment with ticagrelor alone between month 1 and month 12 after the intervention resulted in a lower rate of clinically relevant bleeding and a similar rate of MACCE compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. Along with the results from previous studies, these findings show that most patients in this population can benefit from superior clinical outcomes with aspirin discontinuation and maintenance on ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and the Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

The optimal dosage of aspirin for preventing preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women: A network meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials.

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and optimal dosage of aspirin in preventing preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women. Traditional and network meta-analyses were conducted on data from 23 randomized controlled trials involving 10 547 pregnant women. The findings demonstrated that aspirin significantly reduced the incidence of preeclampsia (OR = 0.66, 95%CI [0.58, 0.75]), with the best preventive effect observed at a dosage of 80-100 mg/day (OR = 0.51, 95%CI [0.36, 0.72]). No significant differences were found in the occurrence of postpartum hemorrhage (OR = 1.03, 95%CI [0.79, 1.33]), small for gestational age (OR = 0.83, 95%CI [0.50, 1.35]), placental abruption (OR = 0.96, 95%CI [0.53, 1.73]), and intrauterine growth restriction (OR = 0.63, 95%CI [0.45, 1.86]) between women taking aspirin and those taking placebos. Different doses of aspirin showed a reduction in preeclampsia incidence, but there was no significant difference in efficacy between the dosage groups. Side effects did not significantly differ between placebo and different aspirin dosage groups. SUCRA analysis suggested that 80-100 mg/day may be the optimal dosage, prioritizing both effectiveness and minimizing side effects. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings. However, improvements are needed in addressing issues like loss to follow-up, reporting bias, and publication bias. In conclusion, a dosage of 80-100 mg/day is recommended for preventing preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women, although individual circumstances should be considered for optimizing the balance between effectiveness and safety.

Association of Age- and Body Mass Index-Stratified High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity With Coronary Intervention Outcomes in East Asian Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although age and body mass index (BMI) significantly affect platelet reactivity units and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention, there are limited data on the relationship between high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and clinical outcomes on age and BMI differences. Thus, we investigated the association of HPR with clinical outcomes according to age and BMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study analyzed 11 714 patients who underwent platelet function tests after percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), whereas the secondary end point was major bleeding. HPR was defined as platelet reactivity units ≥252. Patients were categorized by age (<67 years of age or ≥67 years of age) and BMI (≤22.6 kg/m2 or >22.6 kg/m2). Patients <67 years of age with HPR had increases in both MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.436 [95% CI, 1.106-1.867]; P=0.007) and major bleeding (adjusted HR, 1.584 [95% CI, 1.095-2.290]; P=0.015) compared with the those with non-HPR, respectively. In patients ≥67 years of age with HPR, there were no differences in MACCEs, but there was a decrease in major bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.721 [95% CI, 0.542-0.959]; P=0.024). Meanwhile, patients with HPR with BMI >22.6 kg/m2 had increases in MACCEs (adjusted HR, 1.387 [95% CI, 1.140-1.688]; P=0.001). No differences were shown in major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: HPR was linked to an increase in MACCEs or a decrease in major bleeding in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention, depending on age and BMI. This study is the first to observe that clinical outcomes in patients with HPR after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary based on age and BMI. Because the study is observational, the results should be viewed as hypothesis generating and emphasize the need for randomized clinical trials.

Secondary Prevention in Patients With Stroke Versus Myocardial Infarction: Analysis of 2 National Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of preventive therapies among patients with stroke remains inadequately explored, especially when compared with patients with myocardial infarction (MI), despite sharing similar vascular risk profiles. We tested the hypothesis that participants with a history of stroke have a worse cardiovascular prevention profile in comparison to participants with MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In cross-sectional analyses within the UK Biobank and All of Us Research Program, involving 14 760 (9193 strokes, 5567 MIs) and 7315 (2948 strokes, 4367 MIs) participants, respectively, we evaluated cardiovascular prevention profiles assessing low-density lipoprotein (<100 mg/dL), blood pressure (systolic, <140 mm Hg; and diastolic, <90 mm Hg), statin and antiplatelet use, and a cardiovascular prevention score that required meeting at least 3 of these criteria. The results revealed that, within the UK Biobank, patients with stroke had significantly lower odds of meeting all the preventive criteria compared with patients with MI: low-density lipoprotein control (odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.68-0.78]; P<0.001), blood pressure control (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.59-0.68]; P<0.001), statin use (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.42-0.48]; P<0.001), antiplatelet therapy use (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.27-0.32]; P<0.001), and cardiovascular prevention score (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.39-0.45]; P<0.001). Similar patterns were observed in the All of Us Research Program, with significant differences across all comparisons (P<0.05), and further analysis suggested that the odds of having a good cardiovascular prevention score were influenced by race and ethnicity as well as neighborhood deprivation levels (interaction P<0.05 in both cases). CONCLUSIONS: In 2 independent national cohorts, patients with stroke showed poorer cardiovascular prevention profiles and lower adherence to guideline-directed therapies compared with patients with MI. These findings underscore the need to explore the reasons behind the underuse of secondary prevention in vulnerable stroke survivors.

Ninety-Day Stroke Recurrence in Minor Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Trials and Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Risk of recurrence after minor ischemic stroke is usually reported with transient ischemic attack. No previous meta-analysis has focused on minor ischemic stroke alone. The objective was to evaluate the pooled proportion of 90-day stroke recurrence for minor ischemic stroke, defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale severity score of ≤5. METHODS AND RESULTS: Published papers found on PubMed from 2000 to January 12, 2021, reference lists of relevant articles, and experts in the field were involved in identifying relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies describing minor stroke cohort with reported 90-day stroke recurrence were selected by 2 independent reviewers. Altogether 14 of 432 (3.2%) studies met inclusion criteria. Multilevel random-effects meta-analysis was performed. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies totaling 45 462 patients were included. The pooled 90-day stroke recurrence was 8.6% (95% CI, 6.5-10.7), reducing by 0.60% (95% CI, 0.09-1.1; P=0.02) with each subsequent year of publication. Recurrence was lowest in dual antiplatelet trial arms (6.3%, 95% CI, 4.5-8.0) when compared with non-dual antiplatelet trial arms (7.2%, 95% CI, 4.7-9.6) and observational studies 10.6% (95% CI, 7.0-14.2). Age, hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, or known atrial fibrillation had no significant association with outcome. Defining minor stroke with a lower National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale threshold made no difference - score ≤3: 8.6% (95% CI, 6.0-11.1), score ≤4: 8.4% (95% CI, 6.1-10.6), as did excluding studies with n<500%-7.3% (95% CI, 5.5-9.0). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of recurrence after minor ischemic stroke is declining over time but remains important.

Ticagrelor downregulates the expression of proatherogenic and proinflammatory miR125-b compared to clopidogrel: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Platelet P2Y12 antagonist ticagrelor reduces cardiovascular mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to clopidogrel, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. Because activated platelets release proatherogenic and proinflammatory microRNAs, including miR-125a, miR-125b and miR-223, we hypothesized that the expression of these miRNAs is lower on ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel. OBJECTIVES: We compared miR-125a, miR-125b and miR-223 expression in plasma of patients after AMI treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. METHODS: After percutaneous coronary intervention on acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel, 60 patients with first AMI were randomized to switch to ticagrelor or to continue with clopidogrel. Plasma expression of miR-223, miR-125a-5p, miR-125b was measured using quantitative polymerase chain reaction at baseline and after 72 h and 6 months of treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients and one in 30 healthy volunteers. Multiple electrode aggregometry using ADP test was used to determine platelet reactivity in response to P2Y12 inhibitors. RESULTS: Expression of miR-125b was higher in patients with AMI 72 h and 6 months, compared to healthy volunteers (p = 0.001), whereas expression of miR-125a-5p and miR-223 were comparable. In patients randomized to ticagrelor, expression of miR-125b decreased at 72 h (p = 0.007) and increased back to baseline at 6 months (p = 0.005). Expression of miR-125a-5p and miR-223 was not affected by the switch from clopidogrel to ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor treatment leads to lower plasma expression of miR-125b after AMI, compared to clopidogrel. Higher expression of miR-125b might explain recurrent thrombotic events and worse clinical outcomes in patients treated with clopidogrel, compared to ticagrelor.

Differential Use of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors with Bivalirudin in Patients with STEMI Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIM: The efficacy and safety of bivalirudin when used concurrently with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is uncertain. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to explore the impact of differential use (greater and balanced) of GPI. METHODS: Online databases were queried from inception to March 2023 to identify eight randomized controlled trials (n = 22,483) for inclusion. The primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included cardiac death, reinfarction, stent thrombosis (ST), and stroke. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to derive risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: When compared to heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.97; P = 0.02), major bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), cardiac death (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; P = 0.01), and NACE (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89; P < 0.0001). However, while the bivalirudin arm showed an increased likelihood of ST in the greater GPI subgroup (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.13-2.56; P = 0.01), it was associated with a decreased likelihood of ST in the balanced GPI subgroup (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.65; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings suggest that bivalirudin may be a more efficacious intervention than heparin for reducing certain adverse events in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.