Impact of Smoking Status on Mortality in STEMI Patients Undergoing Mechanical Reperfusion for STEMI: Insights from the ISACS-STEMI COVID-19 Registry.

The so-called "smoking paradox", conditioning lower mortality in smokers among STEMI patients, has seldom been addressed in the settings of modern primary PCI protocols. The ISACS−STEMI COVID-19 is a large-scale retrospective multicenter registry addressing in-hospital mortality, reperfusion, and 30-day mortality among primary PCI patients in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the 16,083 STEMI patients, 6819 (42.3%) patients were active smokers, 2099 (13.1%) previous smokers, and 7165 (44.6%) non-smokers. Despite the impaired preprocedural recanalization (p < 0.001), active smokers had a significantly better postprocedural TIMI flow compared with non-smokers (p < 0.001); this was confirmed after adjustment for all baseline and procedural confounders, and the propensity score. Active smokers had a significantly lower in-hospital (p < 0.001) and 30-day (p < 0.001) mortality compared with non-smokers and previous smokers; this was confirmed after adjustment for all baseline and procedural confounders, and the propensity score. In conclusion, in our population, active smoking was significantly associated with improved epicardial recanalization and lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality compared with previous and non-smoking history.

Use of cangrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Study design and interim analysis of the ARCANGELO study.

BACKGROUND: The itAlian pRospective Study on CANGrELOr (ARCANGELO) was aimed to assess the safety of using cangrelor during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the daily practice. HYPOTHESIS: The safety of cangrelor after the transition to oral P2Y12 inhibitors was evaluated as the incidence of bleeding outcomes in the 30 days following PCI according to postauthorization safety study guidelines. METHODS: Adults with ACS who were treated with cangrelor in one of the 28 centers involved in the study. Patients who consented to participate were followed in the 30 days following their PCI. Bleedings (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification), major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and adverse events were recorded. The interim results at two-thirds of the enrollment period are presented. RESULTS: A total of 17 bleedings were observed in the 320 patients who completed the study at this stage. All bleedings were classified as BARC Type 1-2, except for one case of Type 3a (vessel puncture site hematoma). Four patients experienced MACEs (2 acute myocardial infarctions, 1 sudden cardiac death, 1 noncardiovascular death due to respiratory distress, and multiorgan failure). None of the bleedings was rated as related to cangrelor. CONCLUSIONS: The interim results of the ARCANGELO study provide a preliminary confirmation that the use of cangrelor on patients with ACS undergoing PCI is not associated with severe bleedings.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). BACKGROUND: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. METHODS: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m2), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m2), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year. RESULTS: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800).

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in smokers and nonsmokers with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). RESULTS: There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10-1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49-1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94-2.01]; P = 0.097). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management. METHODS: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800).

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The performance of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have undergone primary angioplasty has not been previously studied. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials that compared DESs (i.e., sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with STEMI. The analysis involved 389 patients with diabetes mellitus from a total of 2476 patients. The outcomes of interest were target-lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, death and the composite endpoint of death or recurrent myocardial infarction during a follow-up of 12-24 months. RESULTS: Overall, 206 diabetic patients received a DES and 183, a BMS. The risk of target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.13; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction.

Short and long-term benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Recent concerns have emerged on the potential higher risk of stent thrombosis after DES implantation, that might be even more pronounced among STEMI patients. The aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and safety of Sirolimus-Eluting Stent (SES) as compared to BMS in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. METHODS: The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). We examined all completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI. The following keywords were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, stenting, DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Cypher. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: A total of 9 trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 2,769 patients (1389 or 50.2% randomized to DES and 1,380 or 49.8% randomized to BMS). At 12 months follow-up, SES was associated with a significant reduction in TVR (4.9% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.0001), with a trend in benefits in mortality (2.9% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.08) and reinfarction (3.0% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.06), without any significant difference in stent thrombosis (1.9% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.36). Safety and efficacy of DES were confirmed at 2-3 years follow-up (data available from 4 trials including 569 patients). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that among selected STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, SES as compared to BMS is safe and associated with a significant reduction in TVR at 1 and 2-3 years follow-up.

Outcome of diabetic and non-diabetic patients undergoing successful coronary angioplasty with bare stent of chronic total occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic coronary total occlusion (CTO) treated with percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PTCA) is poorly investigated. METHODS: To compare the long-term outcome of patients with CTO, with and without diabetes mellitus and undergoing successful PTCA with bare stent implantation performed in a single centre, 170 consecutive patients (mean age 62 +/- 10 years) with CTO aged > 1 month were analysed. Death, myocardial infarction, repeat angioplasty and coronary artery by-pass were considered as hard events in 167 patients with available long-term follow-up (mean 25 +/- 15 months). RESULTS: Vessel mean luminal diameter after the procedure and stent length were 2.5 +/- 0.4 mm and 21.9 +/- 9.4 mm, respectively. No differences were found in baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural variables between the groups, categorized on the basis of presence or absence of diabetes. There were 13 (27%) and 25 (21%) events in diabetic and non-diabetic groups, respectively (P = not significant). Multivariate analysis identified final mean luminal diameter (odds ratio = 4.7192, P = 0.0013) and stent length (odds ratio = 1.0655, P = 0.0003) but not diabetes (P = 0.78) as predictors of events at long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without diabetes undergoing CTO re-opening with stent implantation do not differ at long-term follow-up in terms of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularizations. Final mean luminal diameter and stent length are significant predictors of events during long-term follow-up.