Comparative external validation of the PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS risk scores in 4424 acute coronary syndrome patients treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

BACKGROUND: The PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS risk scores (RSs) were recently developed to help clinicians at individualizing the optimal dual antiplatelet therapy duration (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, external validation of these RSs it has not yet been performed in ACS (acute coronary syndrome) patients treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor in a real- world scenario. METHODS: 4424 ACS patients who underwent PCI and survived to hospital discharge, from January 2012 to December 2016 at 12 European centers, were included. PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS bleeding RS, as well as PARIS ischemic RS, were computed, and their performance at predicting major bleeding (MB; BARC type 3 or 5) and ischemic events (MI and stent thrombosis) during follow up was compared. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 14 (interquartile range 12-20.9) months, 83 (1.88%) patients developed MB and 133 (3.0%) suffered an ischemic episode. PRECISE-DAPT performed better than PARIS bleeding RS (c-statistic = 0.653 vs. 0.593; p = .01 for comparison) in predicting MB. The RSs performance for MB prediction remained consistent in STEMI patients (c-statistic = 0.632 vs 0.575) or in those treated with prasugrel (c-statistic = 0.623 vs 0.586). PARIS ischemic RS exhibited superior discrimination in predicting ischemic complications compared to PRECISE-DAPT (c-statistic = 0.604 vs 0.568 p = .05 for comparison). CONCLUSION: Our data provide support to the use of PRECISE-DAPT in MB risk stratification for patients receiving DAPT in form of aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor whereas the PARIS ischemic RS has potential to complement the risk prediction with respect to ischemic events.

Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n=659; 56.1%) or dilated (n=442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P=.2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P=.1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P=.4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy.