Risk definition and outcomes with the application of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial inclusion criteria to a "real world" STEMI population: results from the Italian "CARDIO-STEMI SANREMO" registry.

BACKGROUND: The PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial inclusion criteria effectively identified high-risk patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI) who would benefit from continuing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor for more than 12 months. It is unknown how many real-world patients meet these criteria during the acute phase of ST-elevation MI (STEMI), or the extent to which these criteria predict a patient's risk and prognosis. Study objectives were: (1) determine the proportion of PEGASUS-TIMI 54-like patients (PG-l) in a real-world cohort of patients hospitalized with STEMI and to assess their ischemic and hemorrhagic risk; (2) examine their ischemic and hemorrhagic in-hospital events (major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [MACCE] and clinically relevant bleeding); (3) evaluate their long-term outcomes and the impact on the long-term prognosis of the type of DAPT prescribed at discharge. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 1086 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of STEMI between February 2011 and March 2018 and enrolled in the CARDIO-STEMI Sanremo registry. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics, procedural variables, and individual ischemic and hemorrhagic risk scores were assessed in-hospital. Four-year survival was also analyzed. RESULTS: The proportion of PG-I patients was 69.2%. Compared with non-PG-l patients, PG-l patients were older, had more multivessel disease and comorbidities, and experienced more frequent MACCE (8.3% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.005) and clinically significant bleeding events (6.7% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.008), a higher rate of in-hospital death (6.5% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001), and higher follow-up mortality rate (14.8% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.002). Four-year survival was significantly lower in the PG-l group (83.9% vs. 91.8%; Log-rank = 0.001) and was related to the cumulative number of concurrent risk factors. In the unadjusted analysis, survival was greater in patients discharged on ticagrelor than on another P2Y12 inhibitor (90.2% vs. 76.7%, Log-rank = 0.001), and the difference was particularly evident in PG-l patients. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of MACCE for PG-l patients increased with the number of concurrent PEGASUS-TIMI 54 risk features. Treatment with ticagrelor on discharge was associated with improved survival rates during 4 years of follow-up.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in real-world patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population. METHODS: To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y12 inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study. RESULTS: Of the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14-36] vs 27 [18-38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 92% vs 81 %; p = 0.002) and primary PCI ≤ 12 h (82% vs 66%; p = 0.001). The patients in the ticagrelor group had a higher procedural success rate (100% vs. 96%; p = 0.044). There was no difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and in unadjusted incidence of hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) but there was a significant reduction in unadjusted cardiac hospital death in the ticagrelor group (0.7% vs 5.4%; p = 0.024). After correcting for propensity score, hospital death (p = 0.22) and hospital MACE (p = 0.96) did not differ in both groups. The unadjusted survival at 1 year after STEMI was higher in the ticagrelor group (97.8% vs 87.8%; p = 0.024), and this result was confirmed by propensity score analysis (hazard ratio = 0.29 [0.08-0.99]; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-word propensity score analysis, ticagrelor did not affect the risk of MACE during the hospital phase, or the incidence of hospital bleeding in patients with STEMI. However, in this mono-centric experience, ticagrelor resulted in improved 1-year survival, even after correction by propensity score.