Average daily ischemic versus bleeding risk in patients with ACS undergoing PCI: Insights from the BleeMACS and RENAMI registries.

BACKGROUND: The risk of recurrent ischemia and bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may vary during the first year of follow-up according to clinical presentation, and medical and interventional strategies. METHODS: BleeMACS and RENAMI are 2 multicenter registries enrolling patients with ACS treated with PCI and clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor. The average daily ischemic and bleeding risks (ADIR and ADBR) in the first year after PCI were the primary end points. The difference between ADBR and ADIR was calculated to estimate the potential excess of bleeding/ischemic events in a given period or specific subgroup. RESULTS: A total of 19,826 patients were included. Overall, in the first year after PCI, the ADBR was 0.008085%, whereas ADIR was 0.008017% (P = .886). In the first 2 weeks ADIR was higher than ADBR (P = .013), especially in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or incomplete revascularization. ADIR continued to be, albeit non-significantly, greater than ADBR up to the third month, whereas ADBR became higher, although not significantly, afterward. Patients with incomplete revascularization had an excess in ischemic risk (P = .003), whereas non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients and those on ticagrelor had an excess of bleeding (P = .012 and P = .022, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In unselected ACS patients, ADIR and ADBR occurred at similar rates within 1 year after PCI. ADIR was greater than ADBR in the first 2 weeks, especially in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients and those with incomplete revascularization. In the first year, ADIR was higher than ADBR in patients with incomplete revascularization, whereas ADBR was higher in non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients and in those discharged on ticagrelor.

P2Y12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome patients with renal dysfunction: an analysis from the RENAMI and BleeMACS projects.

AIMS: The aim of the present study was to establish the safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel and ticagrelor in real-life acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with renal dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients from RENAMI (REgistry of New Antiplatelets in patients with Myocardial Infarction) and BLEEMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registries were stratified according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) lower or greater than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Death and myocardial infarction (MI) were the primary efficacy endpoints. Major bleedings (MBs), defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3 to 5, constituted the safety endpoint. A total of 19 255 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 63 ± 12; 14 892 (77.3%) were males. A total of 2490 (12.9%) patients had chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Mean follow-up was 13 ± 5 months. Mortality was significantly higher in CKD patients (9.4% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.0001), as well as the incidence of reinfarction (5.8% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001) and MB (5.7% vs. 3%, P < 0.0001). At Cox multivariable analysis, potent P2Y12 inhibitors significantly reduced the mortality rate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.96; P = 0.006] and the risk of reinfarction (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.95; P = 0.033) in CKD patients as compared to clopidogrel. The reduction of risk of reinfarction was confirmed in patients with preserved renal function. Potent P2Y12 inhibitors did not increase the risk of MB in CKD patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59-1.68; P = 0.985). CONCLUSION: In ACS patients with CKD, prasugrel and ticagrelor are associated with lower risk of death and recurrent MI without increasing the risk of MB.

Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in ACS Patients Treated with PCI: A Propensity Score Analysis of the RENAMI and BleeMACS Registries.

INTRODUCTION: Real-life data comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are lacking, as are data for the temporal distribution of ischemic and bleeding risks. METHODS: A total of 19,825 patients were enrolled from the RENAMI and BleeMACS registries. Both were multicenter, retrospective, observational registries including the data and outcomes of consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary PCI and were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We evaluated the long-term outcome stratified by the different antiplatelet agents. RESULTS: A total of 14,105 patients (71.2%) were treated with clopidogrel, 2364 patients (11.9%) with prasugrel and 3356 patients (16.9%) with ticagrelor. After propensity score matching, at 1 year, prasugrel reduced the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE; a composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI] and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 3-5 bleeding) (4.2% vs.7.6%, p = 0.002) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of death and MI) compared with clopidogrel (2.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.007). Ticagrelor decreased rates of MACE compared with clopidogrel (2.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), but not of NACE (6.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.07). Ticagrelor presented similar performance in terms of MACE compared with prasugrel (2.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.56), with a trend towards a reduction in MI (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56), but with higher risk of BARC 3-5 bleedings (3.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.04). In the daily risk analysis, clopidogrel presented a binomial distribution with a peak of ischemic risk at 3 months, which decreased towards bleedings; prasugrel had a constant equivalence between opposite risks; and ticagrelor constantly reduced recurrent MIs despite higher risk of BARC 3-5 events. CONCLUSION: In real life, ticagrelor is more effective in reducing ischemic events during the first year after ACS, despite an increased risk of major bleedings, while prasugrel assures a better balance between ischemic and bleeding recurrent events.

Impact of postdilatation on performance of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared with everolimus-eluting stents: A propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter "real-world" registry.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation. METHODS: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com-pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com-pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How-ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi-cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation.