Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Effects of complete revascularization according to age in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (COMPLETE-AGE).

BACKGROUND: In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI. Whether age influences these results remains unknown. METHODS: COMPLETE was a multinational, randomized trial evaluating a strategy of staged complete revascularization, consisting of angiography-guided PCI of all suitable nonculprit lesions, versus a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, treatment effect according to age (≥65 years vs <65 years) was determined for the first coprimary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or new myocardial infarction (MI) and the second coprimary outcome of CV death, new MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR). Median follow-up was 35.8 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 27.6-44.3 months). RESULTS: Of 4,041 patients randomized in COMPLETE, 1,613 were aged ≥ 65 years (39.9%). Higher event rates were observed for both coprimary outcomes in patients aged ≥ 65 years comparted with those aged < 65 years (11.2% vs 7.9%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.22-1.83; 14.4% vs 11.8%, HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Complete revascularization reduced the first coprimary outcome in patients ≥ 65 years (9.7% vs 12.5%, HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.04) and < 65 years (6.7% vs 9.1%, HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96)(interaction P = .74). The second coprimary outcome was reduced in those ≥ 65 years (HR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.43-0.74) and < 65 years (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.37-0.61 (interaction P = .37). A sensitivity analysis was performed with consistent results demonstrated using a 75-year threshold (albeit attenuated). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion-only PCI reduced major cardiovascular events regardless of patient age and could be considered as a revascularization strategy in older adults.

Design and rationale of the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial: A 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial of colchicine versus placebo and spironolactone vs placebo in patients with myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing myocardial infarction (MI) remain at high risk of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). While low-dose colchicine and spironolactone have been shown to decrease post-MI MACE, more data are required to confirm their safety and efficacy in an unselected post-MI population. Therefore, we initiated the CLEAR SYNERGY (OASIS 9) trial to address these uncertainties. METHODS: The CLEAR SYNERGY trial is a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial of low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily versus placebo and spironolactone 25 mg daily versus placebo in 7,062 post-MI participants who were within 72 hours of the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We blinded participants, healthcare providers, research personnel, and outcome adjudicators to treatment allocation. The primary outcome for colchicine is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization. The coprimary outcomes for spironolactone are (1) the composite of the total numbers of cardiovascular death or new or worsening heart failure and (2) the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, new or worsening heart failure, recurrent MI or stroke. We finished recruitment with 7,062 participants from 104 centers in 14 countries on November 8, 2022, and plan to present the results in the fall of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: CLEAR SYNERGY is a large international randomized controlled trial that will inform the effects of low-dose colchicine and spironolactone in largely unselected post-MI patients who undergo PCI. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03048825).

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Effects on Mortality and Major Bleeding of Radial Versus Femoral Artery Access for Coronary Angiography or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data From 7 Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: In some randomized clinical trials, transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) was associated with lower mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing invasive management. We analyzed the effects of TRA versus TFA across multicenter randomized clinical trials and whether these associations are modified by patient or procedural characteristics. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials comparing TRA with TFA among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the co-primary outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. The primary analysis was conducted by 1-stage mixed-effects models on the basis of the intention-to-treat cohort. The effect of access site on mortality and major bleeding was assessed further by multivariable analysis. The relationship among access site, bleeding, and mortality was investigated by natural effect model mediation analysis with multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 21 600 patients (10 775 TRA, 10 825 TFA) from 7 randomized clinical trials were included. The median age was 63.9 years, 31.9% were women, 95% presented with acute coronary syndrome, and 75.2% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. All-cause mortality (1.6% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.95]; P=0.012) and major bleeding (1.5% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P<0.001) were lower with TRA. Subgroup analyses for mortality showed consistent results, except for baseline hemoglobin level (Pinteraction=0.003), indicating that the benefit of TRA was substantial in patients with moderate or severe anemia, whereas it was not significant in patients with milder or no baseline anemia. After adjustment, TRA remained associated with 24% and 51% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and major bleeding, respectively. A mediation analysis showed that the benefit of TRA on mortality was only partially driven by major bleeding prevention and ancillary mechanisms are required to fully explain the causal association. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is associated with lower all-cause mortality and major bleeding at 30 days compared with TFA. The effect on mortality was driven by patients with anemia. The reduction in major bleeding only partially explains the mortality benefit. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42018109664.

Latent Pulmonary Vascular Disease May Alter the Response to Therapeutic Atrial Shunt Device in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In REDUCE LAP-HF II (A Study to Evaluate the Corvia Medical, Inc IASD System II to Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure), implantation of an atrial shunt device did not provide overall clinical benefit for patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. However, prespecified analyses identified differences in response in subgroups defined by pulmonary artery systolic pressure during submaximal exercise, right atrial volume, and sex. Shunt implantation reduces left atrial pressures but increases pulmonary blood flow, which may be poorly tolerated in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD). On the basis of these results, we hypothesized that patients with latent PVD, defined as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance during exercise, might be harmed by shunt implantation, and conversely that patients without PVD might benefit. METHODS: REDUCE LAP-HF II enrolled 626 patients with heart failure, ejection fraction ≥40%, exercise pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≥25 mm Hg, and resting pulmonary vascular resistance <3.5 Wood units who were randomized 1:1 to atrial shunt device or sham control. The primary outcome-a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal ischemic stroke, recurrent HF events, and change in health status-was analyzed using the win ratio. Latent PVD was defined as pulmonary vascular resistance ≥1.74 Wood units (highest tertile) at peak exercise, measured before randomization. RESULTS: Compared with patients without PVD (n=382), those with latent PVD (n=188) were older, had more atrial fibrillation and right heart dysfunction, and were more likely to have elevated left atrial pressure at rest. Shunt treatment was associated with worse outcomes in patients with PVD (win ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.86]; P=0.005) and signal of clinical benefit in patients without PVD (win ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02, 1.68]; P=0.038). Patients with larger right atrial volumes and men had worse outcomes with the device and both groups were more likely to have pacemakers, heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction, and increased left atrial volume. For patients without latent PVD or pacemaker (n=313; 50% of randomized patients), shunt treatment resulted in more robust signal of clinical benefit (win ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14, 2.00]; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction, the presence of latent PVD uncovered by invasive hemodynamic exercise testing identifies patients who may worsen with atrial shunt therapy, whereas those without latent PVD may benefit.

Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus who have not had a myocardial infarction or stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Whether adding ticagrelor to aspirin improves outcomes in this population is unclear. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who were 50 years of age or older and who had stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 19,220 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 39.9 months. Permanent treatment discontinuation was more frequent with ticagrelor than placebo (34.5% vs. 25.4%). The incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events (the primary efficacy outcome) was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the placebo group (7.7% vs. 8.5%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.04), whereas the incidence of TIMI major bleeding was higher (2.2% vs. 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.94; P<0.001), as was the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.48; P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the incidence of fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.1%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 4.15; P = 0.11). The incidence of an exploratory composite outcome of irreversible harm (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage) was similar in the ticagrelor group and the placebo group (10.1% vs. 10.8%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin had a lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but a higher incidence of major bleeding than those who received placebo plus aspirin. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THEMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01991795.).

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

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.).

Balance of benefit and risk of ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease according to bleeding risk assessment with the CRUSADE score: Data from THEMIS and THEMIS PCI.

BACKGROUND: The THEMIS trial demonstrated that in high-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without previous myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor, in addition to aspirin, reduced the incidence of ischemic events but increased major bleeding. Identification of patients who could derive the greatest net benefit from the addition of ticagrelor appears important. We used the CRUSADE bleeding risk score to risk stratify the THEMIS population. METHODS: The population was divided into tertiles: score ≤22, 23 to 33, and ≥34. In each tertile, primary efficacy (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and safety (TIMI major bleeding) outcomes were analyzed. NACE (net adverse clinical events) was defined as the irreversible harm composite, in which all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, amputations, fatal bleeds, and intracranial hemorrhage were counted. RESULTS: Patients in the lower risk tertile experienced fewer ischemic events with ticagrelor than placebo, whereas there was no significant benefit from ticagrelor in the other tertiles (Pinteraction = .008). Bleeding rates were consistently increased with ticagrelor across all tertiles (Pinteraction = .79). Ticagrelor reduced NACE in the first tertile (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90) but not in the others (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.86-1.23 and HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.22, respectively; Pinteraction = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, only those at the lower end of the bleeding risk spectrum according to the CRUSADE score derived net benefit from ticagrelor.

First in-human evaluation of a novel intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography system for intracoronary imaging.

AIMS: We evaluated the first in-human performance of a novel hybrid imaging catheter that permits simultaneous and co-registered acquisition of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 17 patients undergoing planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were imaged between August 2018 and August 2019. Eleven patients with both pre- and post-PCI IVUS and OCT images were included in the offline image analysis. IVUS and OCT images were analyzed separately then together with co-registered images for pre-stent findings, and only separately for post-stent findings. A total of 926 frames were analyzed (218 pre-PCI, 708 post-PCI). There was substantial agreement to detect calcific plaque between co-registered IVUS-OCT and standalone IVUS (Kappa 0.72 [0.65-0.79]) and standalone OCT (Kappa 0.75 [0.68-0.81]) while standalone imaging modalities showed lower agreement to detect lipidic and fibrotic plaques compared with co-registered IVUS-OCT. There were more frames with stent underexpansion on IVUS than OCT [72 (28.7%) vs. 58 (23.1%), respectively, p = 0.039]. Detection rates of incomplete stent apposition (present on 20 OCT frames vs. 2 IVUS frames, p < 0.001) and tissue protrusion (40 vs. 27 frames, p < 0.001) were higher on OCT than IVUS. One stent edge dissection was detected in the image analysis and was seen on OCT but not IVUS. All 177 frames with image artifacts contained at least one co-registered imaging modality with interpretable diagnostic content. There were no study device-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid image acquisition was safe. The availability of both IVUS and OCT changed image interpretation compared to either modality alone, suggesting a complementary role of these two techniques.

Complete revascularization in stable multivessel coronary artery disease: A real world analysis from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry.

BACKGROUND: More than half of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have multivessel disease (MVD). The prognostic significance of PCI in stable patients has recently been debated, but little data exists about the potential benefit of complete revascularization (CR) in stable MVD. We investigated the prognostic benefit of CR in patients undergoing PCI for stable disease. METHODS: We compared CR versus incomplete revascularization (IR) in 8,436 patients with MVD. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1,399 patients (17%) underwent CR during the index PCI procedure for stable disease. CR was associated with lower mortality (6.2 vs. 10.7%, p < .001) and lower repeat revascularization at 5 years (12.7 vs. 18.4%, p < .001). Multivariable-adjusted analyses indicated that CR was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58-0.91, p = .005) and repeat revascularization at 5 years (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66-0.93, p = .005). These findings were also confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. Subgroup analyses indicated that CR conferred survival in older patients, male patients, absence of renal disease, greater angina (CCS Class III-IV) and heart failure (NYHA Class III-IV) symptoms, and greater burden of coronary disease. In sensitivity analyses where patients with subsequent repeat revascularization events were excluded, CR remained a strong predictor for lower mortality (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89, p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of stable patients with MVD, CR was an independent predictor of long-term survival. This benefit was specifically seen in higher risk patient groups and indicates that CR may benefit selected stable patients with MVD.

Use and outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome in patients with chronic kidney disease: insights from the Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study (COAPT).

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases the risk of adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in CKD poses a challenge due to the increased bleeding and clotting tendencies, particularly since patients with CKD were underrepresented in randomized controlled trials. We examined the practice patterns of DAPT prescription stratified by the presence of CKD. The multicentre prospective Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study (COAPT) enrolled patients with ACS between December 2011 and May 2013. The present study is a subgroup analysis comparing type and duration of DAPT and associated outcomes among patients with and without CKD (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, calculated by CKD-EPI). Patients with CKD (275/1921, 14.3%) were prescribed prasugrel/ticagrelor less (18.5% vs 25.8%, p = 0.01) and had a shorter duration of DAPT therapy versus patients without CKD (median 382 vs 402 days, p = 0.003). CKD was associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 12 months (p < 0.001) but not bleeding when compared to patients without CKD. CKD was associated with MACE in both patients on prasugrel/ticagrelor (p = 0.017) and those on clopidogrel (p < 0.001) (p for heterogeneity = 0.70). CKD was associated with increased bleeding only among patients receiving prasugrel/ticagrelor (p = 0.007), but not among those receiving clopidogrel (p = 0.64) (p for heterogeneity = 0.036). Patients with CKD had a shorter DAPT duration and were less frequently prescribed potent P2Y12 inhibitors than patients without CKD. Overall, compared with patients without CKD, patients with CKD had higher rates of MACE and similar bleeding rates. However, among those prescribed more potent P2Y12 inhibitors, CKD was associated with more bleeding than those without CKD. Further studies are needed to better define the benefit/risk evaluation, and establish a more tailored and evidence-based DAPT regimen for this high-risk patient group.

Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The evidence for use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the elective setting is relatively sparse and is based on data from more than two decades ago. We will review the evidence supporting the use of DAPT with focus on stable patients undergoing elective PCI, including the role of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, modified DAPT durations, and more recently, aspirin discontinuation. RECENT FINDINGS: Clopidogrel is the recommended P2Y12 inhibitor in the elective PCI setting. The benefit of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor or prasugrel in stable patients is unproven, but their use might be reasonable in those with high clinical or angiographic features of increased ischemic risk without increased risk of bleeding. Moreover, extending DAPT beyond 12 months is associated with a reduction in ischemic events but also increased bleeding. In contrast, shortening DAPT (3-6 months) reduces bleeding compared with 1 year of treatment, but it is also probably associated with increased ischemic events, mainly in higher-risk patients undergoing complex PCI. Recently, early aspirin discontinuation at 3 months (and perhaps as early as 1 month) following PCI reduces bleeding, with no evidence to suggest an increase in ischemic events. Clopidogrel is the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice, while more data are required to support the use of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in stable patients. The duration of DAPT should be tailored to individual patient ischemic and bleeding risks. New strategies, such as early aspirin discontinuation, are promising to reduce bleeding risk without increase in ischemic risk.

Safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in high-risk patients undergoing PCI: TWILIGHT-SYNERGY.

BACKGROUND: Data examining the safety and efficacy of the bioabsorbable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stent (DES) as compared with durable polymer (DP) DES in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a pre-specified analysis among patients enrolled in the TWILIGHT trial treated with the SYNERGY BP-DES or a DP-DES. Following successful PCI and 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year; DES choice was at physician discretion. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) [composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST)]. RESULTS: Among enrolled participants (N = 9,006), 653 were treated exclusively with the SYNERGY BP-DES and 6,404 with a comparator DP-DES. Over 15 months, TLF rates were 6.4 and 6.1% among those receiving a SYNERGY BP-DES and a DP-DES, respectively (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64-1.35; p = .72). The effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and the composite of all-cause death, MI or stroke was uniform across DES groups (both pint > .10). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy profile of the SYNERGY BP-DES is comparable to that of contemporary DP-DES in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy is consistent among patients receiving SYNERGY BP-DES or DP-DES.

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI): a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. METHODS: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). FINDINGS: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8-3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, pinteraction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78-1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75-1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48-2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36-3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74-1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, pinteraction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. INTERPRETATION: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Design and rationale of the COMPLETE trial: A randomized, comparative effectiveness study of complete versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

A significant proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Following successful culprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI, the question of whether to routinely revascularize non-culprit lesions or manage them conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone is a common dilemma facing clinicians. METHODS: COMPLETE is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, parallel group, open-label trial with blinded evaluation of outcomes. Following successful PCI (contemporary drug eluting stents recommended) of the culprit lesion for STEMI, a total of 4041 patients from 140 centers in 31 countries were randomized to receive either complete revascularization, consisting of staged PCI of all suitable non-culprit lesions plus optimal medical therapy (OMT), or to culprit lesion-only PCI, consisting of OMT alone. OMT comprises evidence-based therapy for STEMI, including and dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, HTN and lipid management. All coronary angiograms in the trial are being evaluated in a central angiographic core lab to assess quality and completeness of revascularization. The co-primary outcomes are (1): the composite of CV death or new non-fatal MI and (2 the composite of CV death, new non-fatal MI or ischemia-driven revascularization at a median follow-up of 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The COMPLETE trial is an international multicenter randomized trial that will help determine whether complete revascularization involving staged PCI of non-culprit lesions improves outcomes in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. (clinicaltrials.govNCT01740479).

Timing of Angiography and Outcomes in High-Risk Patients With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Managed Invasively: Insights From the TAO Trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome With Otamixaban).

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score >140, coronary angiography (CAG) is recommended by European and American guidelines within 24 hours. We sought to study the association of very early (ie, ≤12 hours), early (12-24 hours), and delayed (>24 hours) CAG in patients with NSTEMI with GRACE score >140 with ischemic outcomes. METHODS: The TAO trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome With Otamixaban) randomized patients with NSTEMI and CAG scheduled within 72 hours to heparin plus eptifibatide versus otamixaban. In this post hoc analysis, patients with a GRACE score >140 were categorized into 3 groups according to timing of CAG from admission (<12, ≥12-<24, and ≥24 hours). The primary ischemic outcome was the composite of all-cause death and myocardial infarction within 180 days of randomization. RESULTS: CAG was performed in 4071 patients (<12 hours, n=1648 [40.5%]; 12-24 hours, n=1420 [34.9%]; ≥24 hours, n=1003 [24.6%]). With CAG ≥24 hours as a reference, CAG from 12 to 24 hours was not associated with a lower risk of primary ischemic outcome at 180 days (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.23), whereas CAG <12 hours was associated with a lower risk of death and myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.91). Performing CAG <12 hours was also associated with a lower risk of death and myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.94; P=0.01) compared with CAG performed at 12 to 24 hours. No difference was observed in bleeding complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk NSTEMI, undergoing CAG within the initial 12 hours after admission (as opposed to later, either 12-24 or ≥24 hours) was associated with lower risk of ischemic outcomes at 180 days.