Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points. RESULTS: We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, -0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.).

Ticagrelor monotherapy in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: TWILIGHT-HBR.

AIMS: Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77) with similar relative (Pinteraction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [-5.1% vs. -2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) -2.8%, 95% CI -6.4% to 0.8%, P = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (-3.5% vs. -0.5%; difference in ARDs -3.0%, 95% CI -5.2% to -0.8%, P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status. CONCLUSIONS: Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients.

Ticagrelor monotherapy in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: TWILIGHT-CKD.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prespecified subanalysis of the TWILIGHT trial, we evaluated the treatment effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin according to renal function. The trial enrolled patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation who fulfilled at least one clinical and one angiographic high-risk criterion. Chronic kidney disease, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, was a clinical study entry criterion. Following a 3-month period of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo on top of ticagrelor for an additional 12 months. Of the 6835 patients randomized and with available eGFR at baseline, 1111 (16.3%) had CKD. Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in both patients with [4.6% vs. 9.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.80] and without (4.0% vs. 6.7%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75; Pinteraction = 0.508) CKD, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the former group. Rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between the two randomized groups irrespective of the presence (7.9% vs. 5.7%; HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.88-2.22) or absence of (3.2% vs. 3.6%; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.20; Pinteraction = 0.111) CKD. CONCLUSION: Among CKD patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Age- and Weight-Adapted Dose of Prasugrel Versus Standard Dose of Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800). DESIGN: Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. SETTING: 23 centers in Germany and Italy. PATIENTS: 3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group). MEASUREMENTS: The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2). LIMITATION: The study is a subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.

Ticagrelor alone vs. ticagrelor plus aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: TWILIGHT-ACS.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on clinically relevant bleeding and major ischaemic events in relation to clinical presentation with and without non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis of The Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial, which enrolled 9006 patients with high-risk features undergoing PCI with DES. After 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin, 7119 adherent and event-free patients were randomized in a double-blind manner to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus aspirin for 12 months. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding while the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was the key secondary outcome. Among patients with NSTE-ACS (n = 4614), ticagrelor monotherapy reduced BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding by 53% [3.6% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.61; P < 0.001) and in stable patients (n = 2503) by 24% (4.8% vs. 6.2%; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06; P = 0.11; nominal Pint = 0.03). Rates of all-cause death, MI, or stroke among those with (4.3% vs. 4.4%; HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74-1.28; P = 0.84) and without (3.1% vs. 3.2%; HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.49; P = 0.85) NSTE-ACS were similar between treatment arms irrespective of clinical presentation (Pint = 0.96). CONCLUSION: Among patients with or without NSTE-ACS who have completed an initial 3-month course of DAPT following PCI with DES, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced clinically meaningful bleeding events without increasing ischaemic risk as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy with respect to bleeding events were more pronounced in patients with NSTE-ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02270242.

Impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity on outcomes following PCI in patients on hemodialysis: An ADAPT-DES substudy.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients on versus not on hemodialysis (HD) and examine whether high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) further impacts outcomes among patients on HD. BACKGROUND: Both chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HPR are predictors of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after PCI. METHODS: Two-year outcomes of patients from the prospective, multicenter ADAPT-DES study (N = 8,582) were analyzed according to HD status at enrollment. All patients underwent platelet function testing with the VerifyNow assay; HPR on clopidogrel was defined as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) >208. RESULTS: Compared with non-HD patients, patients on HD (n = 85) had significantly higher baseline PRU (median 254 vs. 188, p = .001) and more frequently had HPR (61.7% vs. 42.5%, p < .001). HD was associated with increased 2-year rates of MACE (death, myocardial infarction (MI) or definite stent thrombosis (ST); 23.4% vs. 10.7%, p < .001). HD was also strongly associated with 2-year overall mortality, cardiac death, MI, target vessel revascularization, major bleeding, stroke and ST. Following adjustment for HPR and other covariates, HD was independently associated with overall mortality, MI, ST, and major bleeding at 2 years. The relationship between HD status and 2-year MACE was consistent in patients with and without HPR (Pinteraction = .78). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of patients on HD exhibited HPR on clopidogrel, and both HD and HPR were independently associated with 2-year adverse outcomes after DES implantation. However, the deleterious impact of HD on clinical outcomes was present in both patients with and without HPR.

Adverse events in patients with high platelet reactivity following successful chronic total occlusion PCI: The Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) typically requires a greater number of stents and longer stent length than non-CTO PCI, placing these patients at greater risk for adverse ischemic events. We sought to determine whether the association between high platelet reactivity (HPR) and the risk of ischemic events is stronger after CTO than non-CTO PCI. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful PCI in the multicenter ADAPT-DES study were stratified according to whether they underwent PCI of a CTO. HPR was defined as VerifyNow platelet reaction units >208. The study primary endpoint was the 2-year risk target vessel failure ([TVF] defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization). RESULTS: CTO PCI was performed in 400 of 8448 patients. HPR was present in 34.5% of CTO PCI patients and 43.1% of non-CTO PCI patients (P = .0007). Patients undergoing CTO PCI with versus without HPR had significantly higher 2-year rates of TVF (15.0% versus 8.3%, P = .04) without significant differences in bleeding. HPR was an independent predictor of 2-year TVF (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02-1.34, P = .03) whereas CTO PCI was not (adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65-1.22, P = .48). There was a significant interaction between CTO versus non-CTO PCI and PRU as a continuous variable for 2-year TVF (Pinteraction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In ADAPT-DES, HPR was associated with an increased 2-year risk of TVF after PCI, an association that was at least as strong after CTO PCI compared with non-CTO PCI.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of lesions with in-stent restenosis: A report from the ADAPT-DES study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data from large contemporary cohorts of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with drug-eluting stents (DESs), and no studies have examined the impact of high platelet reactivity (HPR) on the occurrence of ischemic events after ISR percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DESs. We sought to report outcomes after PCI of ISR lesions and its association with HPR. METHODS: Patients in the prospective, multicenter ADAPT-DES study were stratified according to whether they had ISR versus non-ISR PCI. Two-year outcomes were compared between the groups using Cox proportional hazards models. HPR was defined as on-clopidogrel P2Y12 platelet reaction units >208 as measured by the VerifyNow assay; target vessel failure (TVF) was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Among the 8,582 patients included in the ADAPT-DES study, 840 (9.8%) patients underwent successful ISR PCI. ISR PCI was independently associated with a higher 2-year risk of TVF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.95; 95% CI 1.68-2.27; P<.001) and stent thrombosis (adjusted HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.08-3.51; P=.027) but not bleeding (adjusted HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.73-1.21; P=.64). There was no statistical interaction between HPR and ISR versus non-ISR PCI in regard to TVF (adjusted Pinteraction=.81). CONCLUSIONS: ISR PCI is associated with a considerably higher risk of 2-year adverse ischemic events, with HPR conferring similar risk in ISR and non-ISR PCI. More effective therapeutic strategies for managing ISR lesions are necessary.

Impact of high on-aspirin platelet reactivity on outcomes following successful percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Whether high on-aspirin platelet reactivity (HAPR) confers an increased risk of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. We sought to examine the specific relationship between HAPR and clinical outcomes in ADAPT-DES. METHODS: A total of 8,526 "all-comer" patients in the ADAPT-DES registry who underwent placement of drug-eluting stents (DES) and were treated with aspirin and clopidogrel were assessed to measure platelet reactivity. HAPR was characterized as ≥550 aspirin reaction units and high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity as >208 P2Y12 reaction units. Univariable and propensity-adjusted multivariable analyses were used to assess the relationship between HAPR and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: HAPR was present in 478 (5.6%) patients. Patients with HAPR were older and had more comorbid illnesses and more complex coronary anatomy. During 2-year follow-up, HAPR was not associated with increased rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or all-cause mortality. In propensity-adjusted multivariable analyses, HAPR was not an independent predictor of MACE after successful PCI (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% CI 0.64-1.69, P = .87). Nor was HAPR associated with reduced bleeding. Even among patients with concomitant high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity, HAPR was not associated with worse ischemic outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio for 2-year MACE: 1.06; 95% CI 0.55-2.00, P = .87). CONCLUSIONS: HAPR was infrequently present in a large registry of patients undergoing PCI. There was no clear relationship between HAPR and 2-year clinical outcomes. Investigations of antiplatelet regimens without aspirin after DES implantation are ongoing and should inform future management of patients undergoing PCI.

Coronary Angiographic Findings in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients With Elevated Cardiac Troponin: The Troponin Elevation in Acute Ischemic Stroke (TRELAS) Study.

BACKGROUND: A relevant proportion of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) have elevated levels of cardiac troponins (cTn). However, the frequency of coronary ischemia as the cause of elevated cTn is unknown. The aim of our study was to analyze coronary vessel status in AIS patients with elevated cTn compared with patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 2123 consecutive patients with AIS prospectively screened at 2 tertiary hospitals, 13.7% had cTn elevation (>50 ng/L). According to a prespecified sample size estimation, 29 patients with AIS (median age, 76 years [first-third quartiles, 70-82 years]; 52% male) underwent conventional coronary angiography and were compared with age- and sex-matched patients with NSTE-ACS. The primary end point was presence of coronary culprit lesions on coronary angiograms as analyzed by independent interventional cardiologists blinded for clinical data. Median cTn on presentation did not differ between patients with AIS or NSTE-ACS (95 versus 94 ng/L; P=0.70). Compared with patients with NSTE-ACS, patients with AIS were less likely to have coronary culprit lesions (7 of 29 versus 23 of 29; P<0.001) or any obstructive coronary artery disease (15 of 29 versus 25 of 29; P=0.02; median number of vessels with >50% stenosis, 1 [first-third quartiles, 0-2] versus 2 [first-third quartiles, 1-3]; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary culprit lesions are significantly less frequent in AIS patients compared with age- and sex-matched patients with NSTE-ACS despite similar baseline cTn levels. Half of all AIS patients had no angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease. Further studies are needed to clinically identify the minority of patients with AIS and angiographic evidence of a culprit lesion. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01263964.

Angiographic predictors of 2-year stent thrombosis in patients receiving drug-eluting stents: Insights from the ADAPT-DES study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify angiographic predictors of 2-year stent thrombosis (ST) in the ADAPT-DES study. BACKGROUND: A strong relationship between platelet reactivity and ST after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) was recently confirmed in the prospective, multicenter ADAPT-DES study. METHODS: In a pre-specified analysis of patients enrolled in ADAPT-DES, an independent angiographic core laboratory performed detailed angiographic analyses for all cases of ST. Patients with Academic Research Consortium definite/probable target-lesion ST were matched with controls in a 1:2 ratio, and multivariable Cox regression models identified angiographic predictors of 2-year ST. RESULTS: Among 8,582 patients who had successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and were included in the ADAPT-DES study, 92 (1.1%) patients had ST at 2-year follow-up. Target lesion-related ST was identified in 77 patients (82 lesions) who were clinically matched with 153 patients (196 lesions) without ST. Patients with ST were more likely to have longer target lesions, thrombus, moderate/severe calcification, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) type C lesions, and saphenous vein grafts. After adjustment for clinical covariates the angiographic variables that predicted ST were lesion complexity (ACC/AHA type C lesion, adjusted HR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.19 to 3.26, P = 0.01) and presence of thrombus on index PCI (HR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.40 to 3.59, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomically complex lesions and the presence of thrombus are strong predictors of 2-year ST in the DES era. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors and dual antiplatelet therapy cessation on outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: Results From the PARIS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) may decrease the availability of clopidogrel by competitive antagonism, leading to a potential increase in ischemic events. METHODS: We evaluated patients from the all-comer PARIS registry treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel following coronary stenting for outcomes stratified by PPI use. Two-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or target lesion revascularization (TLR), and net adverse cardiac events (NACE), composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding were assessed. We also explored associations between PPI use and patterns of 2-year DAPT cessation. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 4635 patients (23% PPI users) with mean age 64.4 ±11.4 years. Two year adjusted risk of MACE (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.04-1.55), NACE (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.01-1.44) and TLR (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.04-1.71) were significantly higher in PPI users vs. non-users, without a difference in bleeding. Although the incidence of 2-year DAPT discontinuation and interruption was similar, DAPT disruption was significantly lower among PPI users vs. non-users (10.0% vs. 14.7%, P <0.0001). Compared to non-PPI users on continued DAPT, disruption was associated with higher MACE in both PPI users (HR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.38-3.97) and non-users (HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.02-1.94) but greater BARC 3,5 bleeding only in non-PPI users (HR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21-3.51). CONCLUSIONS: In clopidogrel treated PCI patients, the 2-year adjusted risk of MACE and NACE was significantly higher in PPI users driven by higher TLR compared to non-PPI users, without a difference in bleeding. PPI use was associated with lower incidence of DAPT disruption without an increase in disruption related bleeding compared to non-PPI users on DAPT. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Incidence and impact of acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with coronary artery bypass grafting: Insights from the Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) and Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trials.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a well-recognized predictor of morbidity and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the impact of AKI on the outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in relation to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has not been established. METHODS: Of the 17,421 patients who presented with non-ST-segment elevation ACS or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction enrolled in the ACUITY and HORIZONS-AMI trials, 1,406 (8.0%) underwent CABG as principal treatment after coronary angiography. End points were measured at 1 month and 1 year and included death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. Acute kidney injury was defined as a rise in creatinine of ≥ 0.5 mg/dL, or > 25%, from baseline at initial angiography. RESULTS: Acute kidney injury occurred during hospital admission in 449 (31.9%) of the 1,406 patients treated with CABG. One-month and 1-year mortality was 6.7% vs 2.2% (P < .0001) and 10.4% vs 4.3% (P < .0001) for patients with vs without AKI, respectively. Analogously, the 1-month and 1-year incidence of composite major adverse cardiac events (MACEs; death, MI, or target vessel revascularization) was 17.6% vs 12.4% (P = .003) and 22.0% vs 15.3% (P = .002) for patients with vs without AKI, respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, race, diabetes, hypertension, and baseline creatinine clearance, AKI was an independent predictor of mortality (overall and cardiac-related) and MACE at both 1 month and 1 year in patients treated with CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury occurred in approximately 1 of every 3 patients with ACS treated with CABG and is a powerful independent predictor of death and MACE. These data highlight the need for AKI prevention strategies in patients undergoing CABG.

Prediction of 1-year mortality and impact of bivalirudin therapy according to level of baseline risk: A patient-level pooled analysis from three randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to construct a predictive model for one-year mortality in patients undergoing invasive coronary evaluation and to examine the impact of bivalirudin on survival according to the level of baseline risk. BACKGROUND: Compared to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HEP/GPI), bivalirudin decreases bleeding complications in a range of clinical presentations. The impact of preprocedural risk assessment on survival and whether this is modified by bivalirudin, has not been investigated in detail. METHODS: We examined patient-level data from the REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI trials (n = 18,819) to construct a risk-adjusted mortality model using baseline clinical variables. RESULTS: One-year mortality occurred in 287 patients (3.1%) assigned to bivalirudin and 336 patients (3.6%) assigned to HEP/GPI (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-1.00; P = 0.048). Using 11 highly significant predictors of mortality, we developed an integer-risk score to classify patients into risk tertiles. High-risk patients had a rate of 1-year mortality over 9-fold greater than low-risk patients. Consequently, the absolute mortality reduction attributed to bivalirudin was more marked in high-risk patients: 3.1% (-0.8% to 7.0%) in the overall cohort, 4.8% (0.5% to 9.2%) in the PCI cohort (P-interaction versus intermediate and low risk categories, 0.09 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing invasive coronary evaluation, 1-year mortality can be predicted using baseline variables. Bivalirudin treatment (versus HEP/GPI) conferred a survival benefit.

Impact of an integrated treatment algorithm based on platelet function testing and clinical risk assessment: results of the TRIAGE Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions To Improve Clinical Outcomes Through Optimal Platelet Inhibition study.

Assessment of platelet reactivity alone for thienopyridine selection with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been associated with improved outcomes. In TRIAGE, a prospective multicenter observational pilot study we sought to evaluate the benefit of an integrated algorithm combining clinical risk and platelet function testing to select type of thienopyridine in patients undergoing PCI. Patients on chronic clopidogrel therapy underwent platelet function testing prior to PCI using the VerifyNow assay to determine high on treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR, ≥230 P2Y12 reactivity units or PRU). Based on both PRU and clinical (ischemic and bleeding) risks, patients were switched to prasugrel or continued on clopidogrel per the study algorithm. The primary endpoints were (i) 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis; and (ii) major bleeding, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3 or 5. Out of 318 clopidogrel treated patients with a mean age of 65.9 ± 9.8 years, HTPR was noted in 33.3 %. Ninety (28.0 %) patients overall were switched to prasugrel and 228 (72.0 %) continued clopidogrel. The prasugrel group had fewer smokers and more patients with heart failure. At 1-year MACE occurred in 4.4 % of majority HTPR patients on prasugrel versus 3.5 % of primarily non-HTPR patients on clopidogrel (p = 0.7). Major bleeding (5.6 vs 7.9 %, p = 0.47) was numerically higher with clopidogrel compared with prasugrel. Use of the study clinical risk algorithm for choice and intensity of thienopyridine prescription following PCI resulted in similar ischemic outcomes in HTPR patients receiving prasugrel and primarily non-HTPR patients on clopidogrel without an untoward increase in bleeding with prasugrel. However, the study was prematurely terminated and these findings are therefore hypothesis generating.

Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study.

BACKGROUND: Prior small to modest-sized studies suggest a benefit of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in noncomplex lesions. Whether IVUS guidance is associated with improved clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in an unrestricted patient population is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized "all-comers" study of 8583 consecutive patients at 11 international centers designed to determine the frequency, timing, and correlates of stent thrombosis and adverse clinical events after DES. Propensity-adjusted multivariable analysis was performed to examine the relationship between IVUS guidance and 1-year outcomes. IVUS was utilized in 3349 patients (39%), and larger-diameter devices, longer stents, and/or higher inflation pressures were used in 74% of IVUS-guided cases. IVUS guidance compared with angiography guidance was associated with reduced 1-year rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.6% [18 events] versus 1.0% [53 events]; adjusted hazard radio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.73; P=0.003), myocardial infarction (2.5% versus 3.7%; adjusted hazard radio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.88; P=0.004), and composite adjudicated major adverse cardiac events (ie, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) (3.1% versus 4.7%; adjusted hazard radio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.88; P=0.002). The benefits of IVUS were especially evident in patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions, although significant reductions in major adverse cardiac events were present in all patient subgroups those with including stable angina and single-vessel disease. CONCLUSIONS: In ADAPT-DES, the largest study of IVUS use to date, IVUS guidance was associated with a reduction in stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac events within 1 year after DES implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00638794.

Predictors and impact of target vessel revascularization after stent implantation for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: lessons from HORIZONS-AMI.

BACKGROUND: Target vessel revascularization (TVR) may compromise the benefits of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) We set out to identify the predictors and examine the impact of TVR after STEMI in patients receiving a coronary stent. METHODS: In HORIZONS-AMI, 3,602 patients with STEMI were randomized to bivalirudin versus heparin and a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. Stents were implanted in 3,202 patients (2,982 were randomized to bare-metal stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, and 220 received nonrandomized stents). RESULTS: Target vessel revascularization occurred in 219 patients (6.9%) at 1 year and in 437 patients (14.4%) at 3 years. Target vessel revascularization was ischemia-driven in 418 cases (95.7%). Target vessel revascularization was due to restenosis in 219 patients (50.1%), definite stent thrombosis in 124 (28.4%), and disease progression in 94 (21.5%). Independent predictors of TVR were more extensive coronary artery disease, smaller vessel size, longer lesion length and the number of stents implanted, post-percutaneous coronary intervention diameter stenosis, symptom onset to balloon time, treatment with bare-metal stents rather than paclitaxel-eluting stents, and scheduled angiographic follow-up. Target vessel revascularization was an independent predictor of subsequent myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR] 5.25, P < .0001), ST (HR 5.98, P < .0001), and major bleeding (HR 5.25, P < .0001) but not mortality (HR 0.88, P = .61). CONCLUSIONS: In HORIZONS-AMI, TVR within 3 years after stent implantation was performed in ~1 of every 7 patients and was associated with more extensive coronary disease, more complex procedures, and bare metal stents. Target vessel revascularization was often due to stent thrombosis and disease progression as well as restenosis and was strongly associated with adverse outcomes but not mortality.