Long-Term Beta-Blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure in the Reperfusion Era-Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Beta-blockers are recommended as a standard treatment for patients who experience a myocardial infarction (MI). However, the evidence supporting this recommendation is based on the prereperfusion era data. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of long-term (≥1 year) beta-blocker therapy in post-MI patients without clinical heart failure (HF) in the reperfusion era. We included observational cohort studies, which compared at least 1 year use of beta-blockers to no beta-blockers in patients with an acute MI, but without HF. The clinical endpoint considered was all-cause mortality, except for cardiovascular death in one study. Five cohort studies and 217,532 patients were included. One study demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality with beta-blockers, whereas, in 4 studies, there was no difference in the death rate. The pooled estimate by random effect showed that beta-blocker treatment does not reduce mortality (odds ratio 0.800, 95% confidence interval 0.559-1.145) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 94%). This meta-analysis shows that the use of oral beta-blockers for 1 year or more does not reduce the mortality of MI patients without HF. Large randomized trials need to evaluate beta-blocker discontinuation after an acute MI.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy De-Escalation in Stabilized Myocardial Infarction With High Ischemic Risk: Post Hoc Analysis of the TALOS-AMI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who have high ischemic risk, data on the efficacy and safety of the de-escalation strategy of switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of the de-escalation strategy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor in stabilized patients with AMI and high ischemic risk following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Stabilized Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (TALOS-AMI) trial, an open-label, assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients with AMI who had no event during 1 month of ticagrelor-based DAPT after PCI were included. High ischemic risk was defined as having a history of diabetes or chronic kidney disease, multivessel PCI, at least 3 lesions treated, total stent length greater than 60 mm, at least 3 stents implanted, left main PCI, or bifurcation PCI with at least 2 stents. Data were collected from February 14, 2014, to January 21, 2021, and analyzed from December 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to either de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel or ticagrelor-based DAPT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic outcomes (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis) and bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) were evaluated. Results: Of 2697 patients with AMI (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.4] years; 454 [16.8%] female), 1371 (50.8%; 684 assigned to de-escalation and 687 assigned to ticagrelor-based DAPT) had high ischemic risk features and a significantly higher risk of ischemic outcomes than those without high ischemic risk (1326 patients [49.2%], including 665 assigned to de-escalation and 661 assigned to ticagrelor-based DAPT) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.63; P = .01). De-escalation to clopidogrel, compared with ticagrelor-based DAPT, showed no significant difference in ischemic risk across the high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.54-1.45; P = .62) and the non-high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; P = .21), without heterogeneity (P for interaction = .47). The bleeding risk of the de-escalation group was consistent in both the high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.11; P = .11) and the non-high ischemic risk group (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.75; P = .003), without heterogeneity (P for interaction = .32). Conclusions and Relevance: In stabilized patients with AMI, the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of an unguided de-escalation strategy with clopidogrel compared with a ticagrelor-based DAPT strategy were consistent without significant interaction, regardless of the presence of high ischemic risk.

Triple Antiplatelet Therapy with Cilostazol and Favorable Early Clinical Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction Compared to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Standard or Potent P2Y12 Inhibitors.

Current guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) recommend potent P2Y12 inhibitors rather than clopidogrel to prevent ischemic events. However, their ischemic benefits are offset by an increased major bleeding risk. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol in the first month after AMI. This study investigated 16,643 AMI patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in nationwide, real-world, multicenter registries in Korea. Patients were divided into DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel, n = 11,285), Triple (aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, n = 2547), and Potent (aspirin and ticagrelor/prasugrel, n = 2811) groups. The primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and TIMI major bleeding one month after AMI. After adjusting for covariates, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of death from any cause, MI, or stroke between the three groups. However, the risk of TIMI major bleeding was significantly greater in the Potent group than in the DAPT and Triple groups (p < 0.001). Accordingly, NACE was significantly higher in the DAPT (HR 1.265; 95% CI 1.006−1.591, p = 0.044) and Potent groups (HR 1.515; 95% CI 1.142−2.011, p = 0.004) than in the Triple group. Triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol was associated with an improved net clinical outcome in the first month after AMI without increasing the risk of bleeding compared to potent or standard P2Y12 inhibitor-based DAPT.

Temporal Trends of Major Bleeding and Its Prediction by the Academic Research Consortium-High Bleeding Risk Criteria in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Limited data exist on the temporal trend of major bleeding and its prediction by the Academic Research Consortium-High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We investigated 10-year trends of major bleeding and predictive ability of the ARC-HBR criteria in AMI patients. In a multicenter registry of 10,291 AMI patients undergoing PCI between 2004 and 2014 the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 and 5 bleeding was assessed, and, outcomes in ARC-defined HBR patients with AMI were compared with those in non-HBR. The primary outcome was BARC 3 and 5 bleeding at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The annual incidence of BARC 3 and 5 bleeding in the AMI population has increased over the years (1.8% to 5.8%; p < 0.001). At 1 year, ARC-defined HBR (n = 3371, 32.8%) had significantly higher incidence of BARC 3 and 5 bleeding (9.8% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (22.8% vs. 4.3%; p < 0.001) and composite of ischemic events (22.6% vs. 5.8%; p < 0.001) compared to non-HBR. During the past decade, the incidence of major bleeding in the AMI population has increased. The ARC-HBR criteria provided reliable predictions for major bleeding, mortality, and ischemic events in AMI patients.