De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Prosthetic valve endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to report details of the incidence, organisms, clinical course, and outcomes of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients. BACKGROUND: PVE remains a rare but devastating complication of aortic valve replacement. Data regarding PVE after TAVR in low-risk patients are lacking. METHODS: We performed a detailed review of all patients in the low-risk TAVR trials who underwent TAVR from 2016 to 2020 and were adjudicated to have definitive PVE by the independent Clinical Events Committee. RESULTS: We analyzed 396 low-risk patients who underwent TAVR (including 72 with bicuspid valves). PVE occurred in 11 patients at a median 379 days (210, 528) from TAVR. The incidence within the first 30 days was 0%; days 31-365, 1.5%; and after day 365, 2.8%. The most common organism identified was Streptococcus (n = 4/11). Early PVE (≤ 365 days) occurred in five patients, of whom three demonstrated evidence of embolic stroke and two underwent surgical aortic valve re-intervention. Late PVE (> 365 days) occurred in six patients, of whom thee demonstrated evidence of embolic stroke and only one underwent surgical aortic valve re-intervention. Of the six patients with evidence of embolic stroke, two died, two were discharged to rehabilitation, and two were discharged home with home care. CONCLUSIONS: PVE was infrequent following TAVR in low-risk patients but was associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Embolic stroke complicated the majority of PVE cases, contributing to worse outcomes in these patients. Efforts must be undertaken to minimize PVE in TAVR.

Standardized classification and framework for reporting, interpreting, and analysing medication non-adherence in cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium (NARC).

Non-adherence has been well recognized for years to be a common issue that significantly impacts clinical outcomes and health care costs. Medication adherence is remarkably low even in the controlled environment of clinical trials where it has potentially complex major implications. Collection of non-adherence data diverge markedly among cardiovascular randomized trials and, even where collected, is rarely incorporated in the statistical analysis to test the consistency of the primary endpoint(s). The imprecision introduced by the inconsistent assessment of non-adherence in clinical trials might confound the estimate of the calculated efficacy of the study drug. Hence, clinical trials may not accurately answer the scientific question posed by regulators, who seek an accurate estimate of the true efficacy and safety of treatment, or the question posed by payers, who want a reliable estimate of the effectiveness of treatment in the marketplace after approval. The Non-adherence Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration among leading academic research organizations, representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and physician-scientists from the USA and Europe. One in-person meeting was held in Madrid, Spain, culminating in a document describing consensus recommendations for reporting, collecting, and analysing adherence endpoints across clinical trials. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative safety and effectiveness evaluation of investigational drugs from early development to post-marketing approval studies. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives.

Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that ticagrelor, in combination with aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor alone, improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with standard antiplatelet regimens. METHODS: GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomised, open-label superiority trial at 130 sites in 18 countries. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a biolimus A9-eluting stent for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned (1:1) to 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily for 1 month, followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy, or standard dual antiplatelet therapy with 75-100 mg aspirin daily plus either 75 mg clopidogrel daily (for patients with stable coronary artery disease) or 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily (for patients with acute coronary syndromes) for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months. Randomisation was concealed, stratified by centre and clinical presentation (stable coronary artery disease vs acute coronary syndrome), and blocked, with randomly varied block sizes of two and four. The primary endpoint at 2 years was a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction as assessed by a core lab in a blinded manner. The key secondary safety endpoint was site-reported bleeding assessed according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (grade 3 or 5). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01813435, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2013, and Nov 9, 2015, 15 968 participants were randomly assigned, 7980 to the experimental group and 7988 to the control group. At 2 years, 304 (3·81%) participants in the experimental group had died or had a non-fatal centrally adjudicated new Q-wave myocardial infarction, compared with 349 (4·37%) participants in the control group (rate ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75-1·01]; p=0·073]). There was no evidence for a difference in treatment effects for the primary endpoint across prespecified subgroups of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease (p=0·93). Grade 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in 163 participants in the experimental group and 169 in the control group (2·04% vs 2·12%; rate ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·78-1·20]; p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: Ticagrelor in combination with aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor alone for 23 months was not superior to 12 months of standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by 12 months of aspirin alone in the prevention of all-cause mortality or new Q-wave myocardial infarction 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention. FUNDING: AstraZeneca, Biosensors, and The Medicines Company.

Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document.

The Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-2 initiative revisited the clinical and angiographic end point definitions in coronary device trials, proposed in 2007, to make them more suitable for use in clinical trials that include increasingly complex lesion and patient populations and incorporate novel devices such as bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. In addition, recommendations for the incorporation of patient-related outcomes in clinical trials are proposed. Academic Research Consortium-2 is a collaborative effort between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe, device manufacturers, and European, US, and Asian regulatory bodies. Several in-person meetings were held to discuss the changes that have occurred in the device landscape and in clinical trials and regulatory pathways in the last decade. The consensus-based end point definitions in this document are endorsed by the stakeholders of this document and strongly advocated for clinical trial purposes. This Academic Research Consortium-2 document provides further standardization of end point definitions for coronary device trials, incorporating advances in technology and knowledge. Their use will aid interpretation of trial outcomes and comparison among studies, thus facilitating the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Randomized placebo controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single low-dose intracoronary insulin-like growth factor following percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (RESUS-AMI).

BACKGROUND: Residual and significant postinfarction left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, despite technically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), remains an important clinical issue. In preclinical models, low-dose insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) has potent cytoprotective and positive cardiac remodeling effects. We studied the safety and efficacy of immediate post-PCI low-dose intracoronary IGF1 infusion in STEMI patients. METHODS: Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multidose study design, we randomized 47 STEMI patients with significantly reduced (≤40%) LV ejection fraction (LVEF) after successful PCI to single intracoronary infusion of placebo (n = 15), 1.5 ng IGF1 (n = 16), or 15 ng IGF1 (n = 16). All received optimal medical therapy. Safety end points were freedom from hypoglycemia, hypotension, or significant arrhythmias within 1 hour of therapy. The primary efficacy end point was LVEF, and secondary end points were LV volumes, mass, stroke volume, and infarct size at 2-month follow-up, all assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment effects were estimated by analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline (24 hours) outcome. RESULTS: No significant differences in safety end points occurred between treatment groups out to 30 days (χ2 test, P value = .77). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline (24 hours post STEMI) clinical characteristics or LVEF among groups. LVEF at 2 months, compared to baseline, increased in all groups, with no statistically significant differences related to treatment assignment. However, compared with placebo or 1.5 ng IGF1, treatment with 15 ng IGF1 was associated with a significant improvement in indexed LV end-diastolic volume (P = .018), LV mass (P = .004), and stroke volume (P = .016). Late gadolinium enhancement (±SD) at 2 months was lower in 15 ng IGF1 (34.5 ± 29.6 g) compared to placebo (49.1 ± 19.3 g) or 1.5 ng IGF1 (47.4 ± 22.4 g) treated patients, although the result was not statistically significant (P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, low-dose IGF1, given after optimal mechanical reperfusion in STEMI, is safe but does not improve LVEF. However, there is a signal for a dose-dependent benefit on post-MI remodeling that may warrant further study.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding. Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Events.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. OBJECTIVES: This study compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. METHODS: We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. RESULTS: Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774).

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the effects of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity. METHODS: We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS: Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; Pinteraction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; Pinteraction = 0.920). CONCLUSIONS: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853).

Ticagrelor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Per-Protocol Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

Background In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention-to-treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention-to-treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per-protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol. Methods and Results Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time-varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2-year follow-up, 1103 (13.8%) of 7980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per-protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary end point was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-1.03; P=0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety end point of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.26; P=0.99). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat effect estimates were overall consistent. Conclusions Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1-year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin alone at 2 years after coronary stenting. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01813435.

PRECISE-DAPT score for bleeding risk prediction in patients on dual or single antiplatelet regimens: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY.

AIMS: The five-item PRECISE-DAPT, integrating age, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, creatinine clearance, and prior bleeding, predicts bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation. We sought to assess whether the bleeding risk prediction offered by the PRECISE-DAPT remains valid among patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month onwards after coronary stenting instead of standard DAPT and having or not having centrally adjudicated bleeding endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRECISE-DAPT was calculated in 14 928 and 7134 patients from GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trials, respectively. The ability of the score to predict Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding was assessed and compared among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental strategy) or standard DAPT (reference strategy) from 1 month after drug-eluting stent implantation. Bleeding endpoints were investigator-reported or centrally adjudicated in GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY, respectively. At 2 years, the c-indexes for the score among patients treated with the experimental or reference strategy were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.71] vs. 0.63 (95% CI: 0.59-0.67) in GLOBAL LEADERS (P = 0.27), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.72) in GLASSY (P = 0.88). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit using the PRECISE-DAPT to guide bleeding risk assessment under both treatment strategies. Results were consistent between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints and using the simplified four-item PRECISE-DAPT. CONCLUSION: The PRECISE-DAPT offers a prediction model that proved similarly effective to predict clinically relevant bleeding among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month after coronary stenting compared with standard DAPT and appears to be unaffected by the presence or absence of adjudicated bleeding endpoints.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary revascularisation: individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics. DESIGN: Individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen. CONCLUSIONS: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020176853.

Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain. METHODS: Two randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019143120). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale. RESULTS: Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 231 patients (3.2%) with ticagrelor and in 254 patients (3.5%) with DAPT (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor was associated with lower risk for all-cause (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.96; p = 0.027) and cardiovascular (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.99; p = 0.044) mortality. Rates of myocardial infarction (2.01% vs. 2.05%; p = 0.88), stent thrombosis (0.29% vs. 0.38%; p = 0.32), and stroke (0.47% vs. 0.36%; p = 0.30) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.

Periprocedural Myocardial Injury: Pathophysiology, Prognosis, and Prevention.

The definition and clinical implications of myocardial infarction occurring in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention have been the subject of unresolved controversy. The definitions of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are many and have evolved over recent years. Additionally, the recent advancement of different imaging modalities has provided useful information on a patients' pre-procedural risk of myocardial infarction. Nonetheless, questions on the benefit of different approaches to prevent PMI and their practical implementation remain open. This review aims to address these questions and to provide a current and contemporary perspective.

Impact of periprocedural biomarker elevation on mortality in stable angina pectoris patients undergoing elective coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis including 24 666 patients.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains regarding the exact prognostic impact of biomarker elevation following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable angina pectoris and the subsequent risk of death. We sought, therefore, to evaluate the effect of periprocedural myocardial infarction on the subsequent mortality risk following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable angina pectoris and normal preprocedural cardiac biomarkers level. METHODS: After a systematic literature search was done in PubMed and EMBASE, we performed a meta-analysis of studies with post-procedural cardiac biomarkers data. All-cause mortality and cardiac death were evaluated in subjects with stable angina pectoris who underwent an elective coronary intervention. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 24 666 patients were included. The mean age was 64.2 years ± 9.8 with about 3-quarters (74.9%) of these patients being men. The mean duration of follow-up was 18.1 months ± 14.3. Periprocedural myocardial infarction, based on study-specific biomarker criteria, occurred in 14.3% of the patients. Periprocedural myocardial infarction conferred a statistically significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.01; P < 0.0001; I = 0%); where reported separately, cardiac death was also significantly increase (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-4.80; P = 0.0003; I = 0%). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of periprocedural myocardial infarction after an elective percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable angina pectoris is associated with a statistically significant increase in subsequent all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality.

Ticagrelor alone or conventional dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable or acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy after one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or conventional DAPT in patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY). METHODS AND RESULTS: Risk estimates were expressed as rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 3,840 ACS and 3,745 stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD) patients were included. At two years, rates of the co-primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or urgent target vessel revascularisation, were 7.94% in the experimental and 9.68% in the control group (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.01) among ACS patients and 6.31% in the experimental and 7.14% in the control group (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.69-1.13) among SIHD patients (pint=0.63). Trends for lower and higher risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with the experimental strategy in ACS (2.27% vs 3.00%, RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.51-1.12) and SIHD (2.70% vs 1.96%, RR 1.39, 95% CI: 0.91-2.12) patients, respectively, were observed with significant interaction testing (pint=0.039). A net clinical benefit endpoint, the composite of both co-primary study endpoints, favoured the experimental treatment among ACS patients only. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor monotherapy after one-month DAPT provided consistent treatment effects on ischaemic endpoints in patients with or without ACS but only the former experienced a net clinical benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03231059.

Impact of Periprocedural Myocardial Biomarker Elevation on Mortality Following Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the association between biomarker elevation, with creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) or cardiac troponin (cTn), following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and mortality in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina with normal baseline values. BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown a strong association between post-PCI CK-MB elevation and subsequent mortality. However, the prognostic significance of troponin elevation following coronary intervention is still debated. METHODS: Patient-level data from 5 contemporary coronary stent trials and 1 large registry were pooled. Mortality of patients with stable angina, with normal baseline biomarkers, was compared between patients with and those without different cutoff values of cTn and CK-MB. RESULTS: A total of 13,452 patients were included in this pooled analysis. The overall percentage of patients with elevated biomarkers following PCI was 23.9% for CK-MB and 68.4% for cTn. In the patient cohort for whom both assays were available (n = 8,859), 2.4% had both CK-MB ≥5 × the upper limit of normal (ULN) and cTn ≥35 × ULN, while 92% had both CK-MB <5 × ULN and cTn <35 × ULN. Among patients with CK-MB ≥5 × ULN (n = 315), 212 (67.3%) also had cTn ≥35 × ULN. Conversely, 390 of patients (64.8%) who had cTn ≥35 × ULN did not have CK-MB ≥5 × ULN. A total of 259 patients (1.9%) died at 1 year; 20 (7.7%) had CK-MB ≥5 × ULN, and 23 (8.8%) had cTn ≥35 × ULN. In the Cox multivariate analysis, in which the CK-MB and cTn ratios post-procedure were forced into the model, age, prior myocardial infarction, lesion complexity, hyperlipidemia, and CK-MB ratio (≥10) post-procedure were associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Following elective PCI in patients in stable condition treated with second-generation drug-eluting stent, CK-MB and cTn elevations remain common. After multivariate adjustment, there was an increased mortality rate with elevation of CK-MB after PCI, whereas cTn elevation was not independently associated with mortality at 1 year.

Multislice spiral computed tomography for the evaluation of stent patency after left main coronary artery stenting: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance conventional coronary angiography (CCA) is recommended 2 to 6 months after stent-supported left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention due to the unpredictable occurrence of in-stent restenosis (ISR), with its attendant risks. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) is a promising technique for noninvasive coronary evaluation. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of high-resolution MSCT to detect ISR after stenting of the LMCA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were prospectively identified from a consecutive patient population scheduled for follow-up CCA after LMCA stenting and underwent MSCT before CCA. Until August 2004, a 16-slice scanner was used (n = 27), but we switched to the 64-slice scanner after that period (n = 43). Patients with initial heart rates > 65 bpm received beta-blockers, which resulted in a mean periscan heart rate of 57 +/- 7 bpm. Among patients with technically adequate scans (n = 70), MSCT correctly identified all patients with ISR (10 of 70) but misclassified 5 patients without ISR (false-positives). Overall, the accuracy of MSCT for detection of angiographic ISR was 93%. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 91%, 67%, and 100%, respectively. When analysis was restricted to patients with stenting of the LMCA with or without extension into a single major side branch, accuracy was 98%. When both branches of the LMCA bifurcation were stented, accuracy was 83%. For the assessment of stent diameter and area, MSCT showed good correlation with intravascular ultrasound (r = 0.78 and 0.73, respectively). An intravascular ultrasound threshold value > or = 1 mm was identified to reliably detect in-stent neointima hyperplasia with MSCT. CONCLUSIONS: Current MSCT technology, in combination with optimal heart rate control, allows reliable noninvasive evaluation of selected patients after LMCA stenting. MSCT is safe to exclude left main ISR and may therefore be an acceptable first-line alternative to CCA.