Prevalence Of familial hypercholeSTerolaemia (FH) in Italian Patients with coronary artERy disease: The POSTER study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a powerful risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) since birth are linked to the early onset of atherosclerotic disease. A genetic mutation determining FH is present in about one subject out of 250; FH should be more represented among subjects with a documented diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD). The POSTER Study evaluated the prevalence of FH in Italian patients with a recent CAD event. METHODS: Eighty-two cardiology centres enrolled patients with a documented CAD event; CV risk profile, drug therapy and biochemical parameters were collected. Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria were used to define patients with a potential FH diagnosis (score ≥6); these patients underwent molecular testing for genetic diagnosis of FH. RESULTS: Overall, 5415 patients were enrolled and the main index events were myocardial infarction with ST-elevation, non ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS), or a recent coronary revascularization (34.8%, 37.2%, and 28% respectively). Mean age was 66 ± 11 years, men were 78%; about 40% were already treated with statins, proportion that increased after the acute event (96.5%). Based on the DLCN score, the prevalence of potential FH was 5.1%, 0.9% of them had a diagnosis of definite FH (score >8). These patients were younger than patients with a score <6 (56 ± 10 vs 66 ± 11, p < 0.001), and LDL-C levels were in most of them (~87%) >190 mg/dL. FH was genetically confirmed in 42 subjects (15.9%); genetic diagnosis was defined as not conclusive for FH in 63 patients (23.9%). Finally, in 159 subjects (60.2%) no pathogenic mutations in the tested genes were identified, defining them as negative for monogenic familial hypercholesterolemia. CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore a relatively high prevalence of potential FH in patients with a recent CAD event. Therefore, an early identification of these subjects may help improve the management of their high CV risk and, by cascade screening, identify possible FH relatives.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in real-world patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population. METHODS: To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y12 inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study. RESULTS: Of the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14-36] vs 27 [18-38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 92% vs 81 %; p = 0.002) and primary PCI ≤ 12 h (82% vs 66%; p = 0.001). The patients in the ticagrelor group had a higher procedural success rate (100% vs. 96%; p = 0.044). There was no difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and in unadjusted incidence of hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) but there was a significant reduction in unadjusted cardiac hospital death in the ticagrelor group (0.7% vs 5.4%; p = 0.024). After correcting for propensity score, hospital death (p = 0.22) and hospital MACE (p = 0.96) did not differ in both groups. The unadjusted survival at 1 year after STEMI was higher in the ticagrelor group (97.8% vs 87.8%; p = 0.024), and this result was confirmed by propensity score analysis (hazard ratio = 0.29 [0.08-0.99]; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-word propensity score analysis, ticagrelor did not affect the risk of MACE during the hospital phase, or the incidence of hospital bleeding in patients with STEMI. However, in this mono-centric experience, ticagrelor resulted in improved 1-year survival, even after correction by propensity score.