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).

The EUROpean and Chinese cardiac and renal Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Study (EURO-CRIPS CardioGroup I): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The potential protective effects of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) on contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain to be defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: A double blind, randomized, placebo controlled multicenter study was performed. Patients younger than 85years old, with a renal clearance of 30-60ml/min/1.73m2, who were candidates for PCI for all clinical indications except for primary PCI, were allocated 1:1 to RIPC or to standard therapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of CIN. The secondary endpoint was incidence of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (PMI). From February 2013 to April 2014, 3108 patients who were scheduled for coronary angiography were screened for the study. 442 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 223 received PCI. These patients were randomized to sham RIPC (n=107) or treatment group (n=116). The only pre-specified subgroup of diabetic patients included 85 (38%) cases. RIPC significantly reduced CIN incidence in the overall population (12.1% vs. 26.1%, p=0.01, with a NNT=9) and in non-diabetic patients (9.2% vs. 25.0%, p=0.02), but showed no benefit in diabetics (16.7% vs. 28.2%, p=0.21). A trend for lower PMI was seen in the intervention arm (creatine kinase - muscle brain >5 URL; 8.4% vs. 16.4%, p=0.07; troponin T >5 URL; 27% vs. 38%, p=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning significantly reduces the incidence of acute kidney injury in non-diabetic patients undergoing PCI. Larger sample size is presumably needed to assess the effect of RIPC for patients with diabetes mellitus. Clinical Trial number:NCT02195726https://www.clinicaltrial.gov/.

Causes and timing of death during long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high risk for surgery. Identification of causes of death after TAVR may help improve patient selection and outcome. METHODS: We enrolled 874 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at 3 centers using all approved bioprostheses and different access routes. Clinical outcomes during follow-up were defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 definitions. Causes of deaths were carefully investigated. RESULTS: Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 23.5% ± 15.3%; Society of Thoracic Surgery score, 9.0% ± 8.2%. The Corevalve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) was used in 41.3%; the Edwards Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA) in 57.3%. Vascular access was transfemoral in 75.7%. In-hospital mortality was 5.0%. Cumulative mortality rates at 1 to 3 years were 12.4%, 23.4%, and 31.5%, respectively. Landmark analysis showed a significantly higher incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death in the first 6 months of follow-up and a significantly higher incidence of non-CV death thereafter. At Cox regression analysis, the independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were acute kidney injury grades 2 to 3 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.41) life-threatening bleeding (HR 4.26), major bleeding (HR 4.61), and myocardial infarction (HR 3.89). The independent predictors of postdischarge mortality were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR 1.48), left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge (HR 0.98), and glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (HR 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Around a third of patients treated with TAVR in daily practice die within the first 3 years of follow-up. Early mortality is predominantly CV, whereas late mortality is mainly non-CV, and it is often due to preexisting comorbidity.

Impact of preoperative mitral valve regurgitation on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this single-centre prospective study was to assess the impact of preoperative mitral valve regurgitation (MR) on outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: From June 2007 to January 2011, 176 consecutive patients underwent TAVI at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups according to the degree of MR: <2+, the NoMR group (133 patients); ≥2+, the MR group (43 patients). Clinical and echocardiographic examination were performed before the procedure, at discharge, 1, 3, 6, 12 months after TAVI and yearly thereafter. The mean follow-up was 10.4 ± 7.7 months (range 1-36). RESULTS: MR patients had higher EuroSCORE (27 ± 16 vs. 20 ± 11%, P < 0.001), lower ejection fraction (49 ± 13 vs. 57 ± 12%, P = 0.001), higher systolic pulmonary pressure (50 ± 17 vs. 39 ± 10 mmHg, P < 0.001) and larger left ventricular volumes (end-diastolic volume index: 78 ± 29 vs. 66 ± 20 ml/m(2), P = 0.002) than NoMR. Hospital mortality was 9.3% (four patients) and 3% (four patients) in MR and NoMR groups, respectively (P = 0.10). The Kaplan-Meier survival at 20 months was 78 ± 8 and 75 ± 6% in MR and NoMR groups, respectively (P: n.s.). At follow-up, the degree of MR in the MR group decreased to trivial-mild in 28% of patients. Patients of both groups experienced a significant reduction in the New York Hear Association class, being in class I-II in 91% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TAVI with preoperative MR ≥ 2+ have a higher surgical risk profile and a trend towards higher hospital mortality. MR was not identified as a risk factor for mortality. At follow-up, a reduction in MR and an improvement of echocardiographic parameters were observed in the MR group.

Transfemoral aortic valve implantation of an Edwards Sapien XT valve in a patient with a mechanical mitral prosthesis.

A female patient was admitted to our institution because of congestive heart failure. She was affected by severe aortic valve disease (stenosis with regurgitation) and she had a good functioning mechanical mitral valve, implanted 9 years ago. After multidisciplinary team discussion, the patient was refused for surgery and shifted to transfemoral aortic valve implantation. A 23-mm Edwards Sapien XT valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA) was successfully implanted by totally percutaneous transfemoral approach with local sedation and spontaneous breathing. Both the prostheses had good function at the end of procedure. We present the images of this case, demonstrating the feasibility of transcatheter balloon-expandable aortic valve implantation even in the presence of a mechanical mitral valve.