RESUMO
There are no randomised data on which antiplatelet agent to use in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). The randomised POPular Age trial, in patients of 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS, showed a reduction in bleeding without increasing thrombotic events in patients using clopidogrel as compared to ticagrelor. In this sub-analysis of the POPular AGE trial, we compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor in patients with a need for oral anticoagulation. The follow-up duration was one year. The primary bleeding outcome was Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding. The primary thrombotic outcome consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The primary net clinical benefit outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. A total of 184/1011 (18.2%) patients on OAC were included in this subanalysis; 83 were randomized to clopidogrel and 101 to ticagrelor. The primary bleeding outcome was lower in the clopidogrel group (17/83, 20.9%) compared to the ticagrelor group (33/101, 33.5%; p = 0.051), as was the thrombotic outcome (7/83, 8.4% vs. 19/101, 19.2%; p = 0.035) and the primary net clinical benefit outcome (23/83, 27.7% vs. 49/101, 48.5%; p = 0.003). In this subgroup of patients using OAC, clopidogrel reduced PLATO major and minor bleeding compared to ticagrelor without increasing thrombotic risk. This analysis therefore suggests that, in line with the POPular Age trial, clopidogrel is a better option than ticagrelor in NSTE-ACS patients ≥70 years using OAC.
RESUMO
Diagnosing acute Stanford type A aortic dissection with the uncommon involvement of the left main coronary artery(LMCA) remains challenging for the emergency physician because it can resemble acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. The following case report illustrate this infrequent but critical situation. A 52-year-old woman with a history of hypertension awakened with acute retrosternal chest pain accompanied by nausea and vomiting. She was referred to our hospital for primary coronary intervention because of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Coronary angiography indeed revealed LMCA occlusion. Subsequently successful percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation was performed, followed by immediate clinical improvement of the patient. Soon after admission at the coronary care unit, severe chest pain, hypotension, and electrocardiographic signs of diffuse myocardial ischemia relapsed. Control coronary angiography,however, showed no in-stent thrombosis. Review of clinical examination revealed an aortic regurgitation murmur. Because of this dynamic pattern of (1) signs of acute myocardial ischemia, (2) relapse of hemodynamic collapse, and (3) unaltered control coronary angiography together with the confirmed aortic regurgitation at transthoracic echocardiography, the patient was suspected of having aortic dissection. Transesophageal echocardiography revealed Stanford type A aortic dissection with severe eccentric aortic regurgitation and no pericardial effusion. Emergent valve-sparing aortic replacement was performed. The patient recovered completely. In this case, the lifesaving element was primary coronary intervention with stenting of the LMCA preventing extensive myocardial damage followed by a surgical correction of the aorta.