Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Needs-based considerations for the role of low-dose aspirin along the CV risk continuum.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. The risk of a cardiovascular (CV) event is not static and increases along a continuum, making identification and management complex. Aspirin has been the cornerstone of antiplatelet therapy in CV risk reduction and remains the only antiplatelet agent with current guideline recommendations throughout the CV risk continuum. In light of recent trials, the role of aspirin in CVD prevention in asymptomatic patients has been downgraded in clinical guidelines. However, a substantial proportion of asymptomatic patients have underlying conditions, such as advanced subclinical atherosclerosis that are associated with high CV risk. Advanced subclinical atherosclerosis has not been extensively investigated in patients in clinical trials but in the absence of significant bleeding risks, patients with subclinical atherosclerosis may particularly benefit from preventive aspirin therapy. Recent studies and clinical guidelines support the need for a personalized treatment approach for these patients, balancing their risk of future CV events against their relative bleeding risk. In this commentary, we first discussed various tools and strategies currently available for assessing CV and bleeding risks; we then provided two hypothetical cases to outline how these tools can be implemented for optimal management of patients with no prior CV events who, nonetheless, are susceptible to CVD. The first case details a young and apparently healthy patient with underlying advanced subclinical atherosclerosis; whereas the second case describes a patient with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus who is at higher risk of CVD than their non-diabetic counterparts. For both cases, we considered patient clinical characteristics, CV and bleeding risks, as well as other risk factors to evaluate the appropriate treatment strategy and determine whether patients would obtain a net clinical benefit from low-dose aspirin therapy. These cases can serve as examples to guide clinical decision-making on the use of low-dose aspirin for primary CVD prevention and improve CVD management via a personalized approach.

Dual-pathway Inhibition with Low-dose Aspirin and Rivaroxaban versus Aspirin Monotherapy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Peripheral Artery Disease: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Low-dose aspirin lowers cardiovascular event risk; dual-pathway inhibition (DPI) using low-dose aspirin with low-dose rivaroxaban may reduce this risk further. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy, safety and net clinical benefit (NCB) of DPI with aspirin. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for randomised controlled trials reporting clinical efficacy, safety and NCB of DPI compared with aspirin alone in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease. Six articles representing four trials were included. Results: DPI versus aspirin alone significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 0.77; 95% CI [0.69-0.87]; p<0.01), increased International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding events (HR 1.67; 95% CI [1.37-2.02]; p<0.01) and resulted in a significant NCB (HR 0.79; 95% CI [0.70-0.90]; p<0.01). Conclusion: These results underscore the potential benefit of DPI in patients with CAD, including those in the immediate post-acute coronary syndrome stage and with established CAD, as well as patients with peripheral artery disease.

De-escalation of antithrombotic treatment after acute coronary syndrome, a new paradigm.

After an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) it is imperative to balance the bleeding vs. the ischemic risk given the similar prognostic impact of the two events. Since the post-discharge bleeding risk is substantially stable over time whereas the ischemic risk accumulates in the first weeks to months, a strategy of de-escalation of antithrombotic treatment, consisting in the reduction of either the duration (i.e., early interruption of one antiplatelet agent) or the intensity (i.e., switching from the more potent P2Y12-inhibitors prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel) of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), has been proposed. Reducing the intensity of DAPT can be carried out as a default strategy (unguided approach) or based on the results of either platelet function tests or genetic tests (guided approach). Overall, all de-escalation strategies have shown to consistently decrease bleeding events with no apparent increase in ischemic events as compared to 12-month standard-of-care DAPT. Owing however to several limitations and weaknesses of the available evidence, de-escalation strategies are currently not recommended as a routine, but should rather be considered for selected ACS patients, such as those at increased risk of bleeding.

De-escalation or abbreviation of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention: a Consensus Statement from an international expert panel on coronary thrombosis.

Conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention comprises aspirin with a potent P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor) for 12 months. Although this approach reduces ischaemic risk, patients are exposed to a substantial risk of bleeding. Strategies to reduce bleeding include de-escalation of DAPT intensity (downgrading from potent P2Y12 inhibitor at conventional doses to either clopidogrel or reduced-dose prasugrel) or abbreviation of DAPT duration. Either strategy requires assessment of the ischaemic and bleeding risks of each individual. De-escalation of DAPT intensity can reduce bleeding without increasing ischaemic events and can be guided by platelet function testing or genotyping. Abbreviation of DAPT duration after 1-6 months, followed by monotherapy with aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, reduces bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients at high bleeding risk, particularly those without high ischaemic risk. However, these two strategies have not yet been compared in a head-to-head clinical trial. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the evidence base for these treatment approaches, provide guidance on the assessment of ischaemic and bleeding risks, and provide consensus statements from an international panel of experts to help clinicians to optimize these DAPT approaches for individual patients to improve outcomes.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Impact of body mass on P2Y12-inhibitor de-escalation in acute coronary syndromes-a substudy of the TROPICAL-ACS trial.

AIMS: Clinical guidelines recommend de-escalation antiplatelet strategies to reduce bleeding risk in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, albeit with a weak recommendation. This substudy of the TROPICAL-ACS trial aimed to determine the impact of body mass on the efficacy of a platelet function testing-guided de-escalation regimen in ACS patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to prasugrel (control group) or a platelet function testing-guided regimen with clopidogrel or prasugrel defined after 1-week clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the net clinical benefit [cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2-5 bleeding] for 12 months. Overweight was defined as a body mass index >25 kg/m2.Patients without overweight showed a significant net clinical benefit from the de-escalation strategy, while in overweight cases de-escalation was comparable to prasugrel treatment [hazard ratio (HR): 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31-0.88; P = 0.013 and HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.69-1.31, P = 0.717, P-non-inferiority = 0.03, respectively, P-interaction = 0.053]. The benefit of de-escalation in terms of the risk of bleeding or of the ischaemic events did not reach statistical significance. Bleeding events with de-escalation were less frequent in non-overweight patients but comparable in overweight patients (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-1.03; P = 0.057 and HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.64-1.41, respectively, P-interaction = 0.147). Non-overweight patients had lower ischaemic event rates with de-escalation, while overweight cases had slightly less (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.18-1.25; P = 0.128 and HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.53-1.50, respectively, P-interaction = 0.261). CONCLUSION: The strategy of guided dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation was associated with a significant net clinical benefit in non-overweight patients, while the two strategies were equivalent in overweight patients.

Dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in acute coronary syndrome: an individual patient meta-analysis.

AIMS: Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). De-escalation of the potent P2Y12 inhibtor is an appealing concept to balance the ischaemic and bleeding risks after PCI. An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed to compare de-escalation versus standard DAPT in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database, were searched to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the de-escalation strategy with the standard DAPT after PCI in patients with ACS. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The co-primary endpoints of interest were the ischaemic composite endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events) and bleeding endpoint (any bleeding) at 1-year post-PCI. Four RCTs (the TROPICAL-ACS, POPular Genetics, HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, and TALOS-AMI trials) including 10 133 patients were analysed. The ischaemic endpoint was significantly lower in the patients assigned to the de-escalation strategy than in those assigned to the standard strategy (2.3% vs. 3.0%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.761, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.597-0.972, log rank P = 0.029). Bleeding was also significantly lower in the de-escalation strategy group (6.5% vs. 9.1%, HR 0.701, 95% CI 0.606-0.811, log rank P < 0.001). No significant intergroup differences were observed in terms of all-cause death and major bleeding events. Subgroup analyses revealed that compared to guided de-escalation, unguided de-escalation had a significantly larger impact on bleeding endpoint reduction (P for interaction = 0.007); no intergroup differences were observed for the ischaemic endpoints. CONCLUSION: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, DAPT-based de-escalation was associated with both decreased ischaemic and bleeding endpoints. Reduction in bleeding endpoints was more prominent for the unguided than the guided de-escalation strategy. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021245477).

High on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity and restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the association between high on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity (HAPR) and the subsequent risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with predominantly drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The association between HAPR and subsequent risk of restenosis after PCI is unclear. METHODS: This study included 4839 patients undergoing PCI (02/2007-12/2011) in the setting of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) registry. Platelet function was assessed with impedance aggregometry using the multi-plate analyzer immediately before PCI and after intravenous administration of aspirin (500 mg). The primary outcome was clinical restenosis, defined as target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included binary angiographic restenosis and late lumen loss at 6- to 8-month angiography. RESULTS: The upper quintile cut-off of platelet reactivity measurements (191 AU × min) was used to categorize patients into a group with HAPR (platelet reactivity > 191 AU × min; n = 952) and a group without HAPR (platelet reactivity ≤ 191 AU × min; n = 3887). The primary outcome occurred in 94 patients in the HAPR group and 405 patients without HAPR (cumulative incidence, 9.9% and 10.4%; HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.19; P = 0.70). Follow-up angiography was performed in 73.2% of patients. There was no difference in binary restenosis (15.2% vs. 14.9%; P = 0.79) or late lumen loss (0.32 ± 0.57 vs. 0.32 ± 0.59 mm; P = 0.93) between patients with HAPR versus those without HAPR. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find an association between HAPR, measured at the time of PCI, and clinical restenosis at 1 year after PCI.

Advanced subclinical atherosclerosis: A novel category within the cardiovascular risk continuum with distinct treatment implications.

Traditionally, guidelines divide patients into primary and secondary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk management. However, the modern understanding of the biological progression of atherosclerosis is inconsistent with this binary approach. Therefore, a new approach demonstrating both atherosclerosis and ASCVD risk as a continuum is needed to give clinicians a framework for better matching risk and intensity of therapy. Advances in coronary imaging have most clearly brought this problem into view, as for example coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring has shown that some individuals in the primary prevention have equal or higher ASCVD risk as certain subgroups in secondary prevention. This article introduces "advanced subclinical atherosclerosis" as a new and distinct clinical group that sits between the traditional groups of primary and secondary prevention. Importantly, this article also introduces a new graphic to visualize this intermediate population that is explicitly based on plaque burden. The aim of the graphic is both to educate and to allow for better identification of a patient's cardiovascular risk and guide more effective risk-based management.

Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with off-hour versus on-hour presentation: a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (Pint = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Immature Platelet Fraction Predicts Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: the ISAR-REACT 5 Reticulated Platelet Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Immature or reticulated platelets are associated with impaired efficacy of antiplatelet drugs and adverse events in cardiovascular patients. Their role as a predictive biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is not fully understood. We aimed to prospectively evaluate reticulated platelets as a predictor of the primary end point of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Immature platelet fraction (IPF) was assessed within 48 hours after randomization. Patients were divided based on the IPF median values: the IPFhigh group included patients with IPF>median and the IPFlow group included patients with IPF≤median. Platelet aggregation was assessed using the Multiplate Analyzer and was correlated to IPF. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven patients were included in the study. IPF values in % (median [interquartile range]) within the first 48 hours did not differ between the two study groups: 3.6 (2.5-5.2)% in the prasugrel group and 3.6 (2.5-5.4)% in the ticagrelor group (P=0.882). The incidence of the primary end point was significantly higher in the IPFhigh (IPF>3.6%) group compared with the IPFlow (IPF≤3.6%) group: 13.0% versus 7.2% (HRadj, 1.74 [1.02-3.00]; P=0.044), independently from the assigned drug (Pint=0.159). No significant association between IPF and BARC 3 to 5 bleeding was observed. ADP-induced platelet aggregation correlated significantly with IPF in patients treated with prasugrel (r=0.22; P=0.005) while no correlation was detected in patients treated with ticagrelor (r=0.09; P=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Independently from drug treatment, IPF was associated with the primary end point and therefore is a promising biomarker for the prediction of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Acute, periprocedural and longterm antithrombotic therapy in older adults: 2022 Update by the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

The first international guidance on antithrombotic therapy in the elderly came from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis in 2015. This same group has updated its previous report on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs for older patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, or undergoing surgery or procedures typical of the elderly (transcatheter aortic valve implantation and left atrial appendage closure). The aim is to provide a succinct but comprehensive tool for readers to understand the bases of antithrombotic therapy in older patients, despite the complexities of comorbidities, comedications and uncertain ischaemic- vs. bleeding-risk balance. Fourteen updated consensus statements integrate recent trial data and other evidence, with a focus on high bleeding risk. Guideline recommendations, when present, are highlighted, as well as gaps in evidence. Key consensus points include efforts to improve medical adherence through deprescribing and polypill use; adoption of universal risk definitions for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke and cause-specific death; multiple bleeding-avoidance strategies, ranging from gastroprotection with aspirin use to selection of antithrombotic-drug composition, dosing and duration tailored to multiple variables (setting, history, overall risk, age, weight, renal function, comedications, procedures) that need special consideration when managing older adults.

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined. METHODS: This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 109/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 109/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 109/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p = 0.138, p int = 0.102). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P<0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P<0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary (P for interaction=0.12) or secondary (P for interaction=0.80) end points. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Assessment and Mitigation of Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: Executive Summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper.

While there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision for initiating and continuing anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static "one-off" assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by aging, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this executive summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with a view to summarizing "best practice" when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, and review established bleeding risk factors and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism, are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static 'one off' assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing 'best practice' when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Body mass index and efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) according to body mass index (BMI) remain unstudied. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with ACS according to BMI. METHODS: Patients (n=3987) were grouped into 3 categories: normal weight (BMI <25kg/m2; n=1084), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to <30kg/m2; n=1890), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30kg/m2; n=1013). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1 year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary safety endpoint was the 1 year incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 63 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 39 patients assigned to prasugrel in the normal weight group (11.7% vs 7.5%; HR, 1.62; 95%CI, 1.09-2.42; P=.018), 78 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 58 patients assigned to prasugrel in the overweight group (8.3% vs 6.2%; HR, 1.36; 95%CI, 0.97-1.91; P=.076), and 43 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 37 patients assigned to prasugrel in the obesity group (8.6% vs 7.3%; HR, 1.18; 95%CI, 0.76-1.84; P=.451). The 1-year incidence of bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with normal weight (6.5% vs 6.6%; P=.990), overweight (5.6% vs 5.0%; P=.566) or obesity (4.4% vs 2.8%; P=.219). There was no significant treatment arm-by-BMI interaction regarding the primary endpoint (Pint=.578) or secondary endpoint (Pint=.596). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, BMI did not significantly impact the treatment effect of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy or safety. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.