Coronary calcification in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the MATRIX trial.

AIMS: The role of coronary calcification on clinical outcomes among different revascularization strategies in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) has been rarely investigated. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the role of coronary calcification, detected by coronary angiography, in the whole spectrum of patients presenting with acute ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study was a post hoc analysis of the MATRIX programme. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke up to 365 days. Among the 8404 patients randomized in the MATRIX trial, data about coronary calcification were available in 7446 (88.6%) and therefore were included in this post hoc analysis. Overall, 875 patients (11.7%) presented with severe coronary calcification, while 6571 patients (88.3%) did not present severe coronary calcification on coronary angiography. Fewer patients with severe coronary calcification underwent percutaneous coronary intervention whereas coronary artery bypass grafting or medical therapy-only was more frequent compared with patients without severe calcification. At 1-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 237 (27.1%) patients with severe calcified coronary lesions and 985 (15%) patients without severe coronary calcified lesions [hazard ratio (HR) 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-2.20, P < 0.001]. All-cause mortality was 8.6% in patients presenting with and 3.7% in those without severe coronary calcification (HR 2.38, 1.84-3.09, P < 0.001). Patients with severe coronary calcification incurred higher rate of MI (20.1% vs. 11.5%, HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.1, P < 0.001) and similar rate of stroke (0.8% vs. 0.6%, HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.61-3.02, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Patients with ACS and severe coronary calcification, as compared to those without, are associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the management strategy.

Antiplatelet Therapy with Cangrelor in Patients Undergoing Surgery after Coronary Stent Implantation: A Real-World Bridging Protocol Experience.

Objective The aim of the study is to describe the real-world use of the P2Y 12 inhibitor cangrelor as a bridging strategy in patients at high thrombotic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and referred to surgery requiring perioperative withdrawal of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Materials and Methods We collected data from nine Italian centers on patients with previous PCI who were still on DAPT and undergoing nondeferrable surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation. A perioperative standardized bridging protocol with cangrelor was used. Results Between December 2017 and April 2019, 24 patients (mean age 72 years; male 79%) were enrolled. All patients were at high thrombotic risk after PCI and required nondeferrable intermediate to high bleeding risk surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation (4.6 ± 1.7 days). Cangrelor infusion was started at a bridging dose (0.75 µg/kg/min) 3 days before planned surgery and was discontinued 6.6 ± 1.5 hours prior to surgical incision. In 55% of patients, cangrelor was resumed at 9 ± 6 hours following surgery for a mean of 39 ± 38 hours. One cardiac death was reported after 3 hours of cangrelor discontinuation prior to surgery. No ischemic outcomes occurred after surgery and up to 30-days follow-up. The mean hemoglobin drop was <2 g/dL; nine patients received blood transfusions consistent with the type of surgery, but no life-threatening or fatal bleeding occurred. Conclusion Perioperative bridging therapy with cangrelor is a feasible approach for stented patients at high thrombotic risk and referred to surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation. Larger studies are warranted to support the safety of this strategy.

Downstream or upstream administration of P2Y12 receptor blockers in non-ST elevated acute coronary syndromes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing to administer a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients presenting with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome remains a topic of debate. Pretreatment with ticagrelor before coronary anatomy is known as a widely adopted strategy. However, there is poor evidence on how this compares with administration of a P2Y12 inhibitor after defining coronary anatomy (i.e., downstream administration). Moreover, there are limited head-to-head comparisons of the two P2Y12 inhibitors-ticagrelor and prasugrel-currently recommended by the guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: DUBIUS is a phase 4, multicenter, parallel-group, double randomized study conducted in NSTE-ACS patients designed to compare a pretreatment strategy (including only ticagrelor) versus a downstream strategy (including prasugrel or ticagrelor) and to compare downstream prasugrel with downstream ticagrelor. A total of 2520 patients will be randomly assigned to pretreatment with ticagrelor or to no pretreatment. The PCI group of the downstream arm will be further randomized to receive prasugrel or ticagrelor. The two primary hypotheses are that the downstream strategy is superior to the upstream strategy and that downstream ticagrelor is non-inferior to downstream prasugrel, both measured by the incidence of a composite efficacy and safety endpoint of death from vascular causes, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3, 4, and 5 bleedings. CONCLUSIONS: The DUBIUS study will provide important evidence related to the benefits and risks of pretreatment with ticagrelor compared with a strategy of no pretreatment. Moreover, the clinical impact of using downstream ticagrelor compared with downstream prasugrel will be assessed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618837 . Registered on 1 December 2015.

Timing of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Administration in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Although oral P2Y12 inhibitors are key in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, the optimal timing of their administration is not well defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare downstream and upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitors administration strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive treatment. METHODS: We performed a randomized, adaptive, open-label, multicenter clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive pre-treatment with ticagrelor before angiography (upstream group) or no pre-treatment (downstream group). Patients in the downstream group undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were further randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary hypothesis was the superiority of the downstream versus the upstream strategy on the combination of efficacy and safety events (net clinical benefit). RESULTS: We randomized 1,449 patients to downstream or upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration. A pre-specified stopping rule for futility at interim analysis led the trial to be stopped. The rate of the primary endpoint, a composite of death due to vascular causes; nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3, 4, and 5 bleeding through day 30, did not differ significantly between the downstream and upstream groups (percent absolute risk reduction: -0.46; 95% repeated confidence interval: -2.90 to 1.90). These results were confirmed among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (72% of population) and regardless of the timing of coronary angiography (within or after 24 h from enrollment). CONCLUSIONS: Downstream and upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration strategies were associated with low incidence of ischemic and bleeding events and minimal numeric difference of event rates between treatment groups. These findings led to premature interruption of the trial and suggest the unlikelihood of enhanced efficacy of 1 strategy over the other. (Downstream Versus Upstream Strategy for the Administration of P2Y12 Receptor Blockers In Non-ST Elevated Acute Coronary Syndromes With Initial Invasive Indication [DUBIUS]; NCT02618837).

Bivalirudin or Heparin in Patients Undergoing Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site-related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING: The Medicines Company and Terumo.