Clinical impact of influenza vaccination after ST- and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction - insights from the IAMI trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination early after myocardial infarction (MI) improves prognosis but vaccine effectiveness may differ dependent on type of MI. METHODS: A total of 2,571 participants were prospectively enrolled in the Influenza vaccination after myocardial infarction (IAMI) trial and randomly assigned to receive in-hospital inactivated influenza vaccine or saline placebo. The trial was conducted at 30 centers in eight countries from October 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. Here we report vaccine effectiveness in the 2,467 participants with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI, n = 1,348) or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI, n = 1,119). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. Cumulative incidence of the primary and key secondary endpoints by randomized treatment and NSTEMI/STEMI was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment effects were evaluated with formal interaction testing to assess for effect modification. RESULTS: Baseline risk was higher in participants with NSTEMI. In the NSTEMI group the primary endpoint occurred in 6.5% of participants assigned to influenza vaccine and 10.5% assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), compared to 4.1% assigned to influenza vaccine and 4.5% assigned to placebo in the STEMI group (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50, P = .237 for interaction). Similar findings were seen for the key secondary endpoints of all-cause death and cardiovascular death. The Kaplan-Meier risk difference in all-cause death at one year was more pronounced in participants with NSTEMI (NSTEMI: HR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.28-0.80, STEMI: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70, interaction P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of influenza vaccination on adverse cardiovascular events may be enhanced in patients with NSTEMI compared to those with STEMI.

Influenza Vaccination After Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational and small, randomized studies suggest that influenza vaccine may reduce future cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind trial to compare inactivated influenza vaccine with saline placebo administered shortly after myocardial infarction (MI; 99.7% of patients) or high-risk stable coronary heart disease (0.3%). The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. A hierarchical testing strategy was used for the key secondary end points: all-cause death, cardiovascular death, MI, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the data safety and monitoring board recommended to halt the trial before attaining the prespecified sample size. Between October 1, 2016, and March 1, 2020, 2571 participants were randomized at 30 centers across 8 countries. Participants assigned to influenza vaccine totaled 1290 and individuals assigned to placebo equaled 1281; of these, 2532 received the study treatment (1272 influenza vaccine and 1260 placebo) and were included in the modified intention to treat analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 67 participants (5.3%) assigned influenza vaccine and 91 participants (7.2%) assigned placebo (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52-0.99]; P=0.040). Rates of all-cause death were 2.9% and 4.9% (hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.89]; P=0.010), rates of cardiovascular death were 2.7% and 4.5%, (hazard ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]; P=0.014), and rates of MI were 2.0% and 2.4% (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.50-1.46]; P=0.57) in the influenza vaccine and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccination early after an MI or in high-risk coronary heart disease resulted in a lower risk of a composite of all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis, and a lower risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular death, as well, at 12 months compared with placebo. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02831608.

Predictors allowing early discharge after interventional treatment of acute coronary syndrome patients.

Many scoring systems for predicting the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been proposed. In some populations, a significant reduction in length of hospital stay may be achieved without compromising patient prognoses. However, the use of such scoring systems in clinical practice is limited. The aim of this study was to propose a universal list of predictors that can identify low-risk ACS patients who may be eligible for an earlier hospital discharge without increased short-term risk for major adverse cardiac events. A cohort of 1420 patients diagnosed with ACS were enrolled into a single-centre registry between October 2018 and December 2020. Clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic, and angiographic measurements were taken for each patient and entered into the study database. Using retrospective univariant analyses of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 932), we compared each predictor to 30-day mortality rate using the Czech national registry of dead people. Eleven predictors correlate significantly with 30-day survival: age <80 years, ejection fraction >50%, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no mechanical ventilation needed, Killip class I at admission, haemoglobin levels >110 g/L while hospitalized, successful PCI procedure(s), no residual stenosis over 90%, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 3 flow after PCI, no left main stem disease, and no triple-vessel coronary artery disease. In all, presence of all predictors applies to 328 patients (35.2% of the cohort), who maintained a 100% survival rate at 30 days. A combination of clinical, echocardiographic, and angiographic findings provides valuable information for predicting the outcomes of patients with all types of ACS. We created a simple, useful tool for selecting low-risk patients eligible for early discharge.

Patient characteristics, treatment strategy, outcomes, and hospital costs of acute coronary syndrome: 3 years of data from a large high-volume centre in Central Europe.

Managing patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in an ageing population with comorbidities is clinically and economically challenging. Well-conducted unselected registries are essential for providing information on real-day clinical practice. The aim was to create a long term, very detail-controlled registry of unselected patients admitted with ACS to a high-volume centre in Central Europe. Consecutive patients admitted with confirmed ACS were entered into the prospective registry from 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2021. Data on 214 parameters, including clinical characteristics, angiographic findings, laboratory and therapeutic findings, financial costs, and in-hospital mortality, were obtained for all patients. Analyses were performed on the complete dataset of 1804 patients. Of these patients, 694 (38.5%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 1110 (61.5%) were admitted for non-ST-elevation (NSTE)-ACS [779 with NSTE myocardial infarction (NSTE-MI) and 331 with unstable angina (UA)]. Almost all patients (99%) underwent coronary angiography. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 93.4% of STEMI patients and 74.5% of NSTE-ACS patients. Patients with NSTE-MI had the longest total hospital stay (8.1 ± 9.1 days) and highest financial costs (8579.5 ± 7173.2 euros). In-hospital mortality was 1.2% in UA, 6.2% in NSTE-MI, and 10.9% in STEMI patients. Age older than 75 years, pre-hospital cardiac arrest and/or mechanical ventilation, subacute STEMI, and ejection fraction below 40% were the most powerful predictors of in-hospital mortality as assessed by multivariate analyses. The in-hospital mortality of unselected NSTE-MI and STEMI patients in daily practice is not low despite very good implementation of guideline-recommended therapy with a high rate of revascularization. The highest financial costs are associated with NSTE-MI.

Reperfusion therapies and in-hospital outcomes for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Europe: the ACVC-EAPCI EORP STEMI Registry of the European Society of Cardiology.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary use of reperfusion therapy in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member and affiliated countries and adherence to ESC clinical practice guidelines in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort (EURObservational Research Programme STEMI Registry) of hospitalized STEMI patients with symptom onset <24 h in 196 centres across 29 countries. A total of 11 462 patients were enrolled, for whom primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (total cohort frequency: 72.2%, country frequency range 0-100%), fibrinolysis (18.8%; 0-100%), and no reperfusion therapy (9.0%; 0-75%) were performed. Corresponding in-hospital mortality rates from any cause were 3.1%, 4.4%, and 14.1% and overall mortality was 4.4% (country range 2.5-5.9%). Achievement of quality indicators for reperfusion was reported for 92.7% (region range 84.8-97.5%) for the performance of reperfusion therapy of all patients with STEMI <12 h and 54.4% (region range 37.1-70.1%) for timely reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of reperfusion therapy for STEMI in the ESC member and affiliated countries was high. Primary PCI was the most frequently used treatment and associated total in-hospital mortality was below 5%. However, there was geographic variation in the use of primary PCI, which was associated with differences in in-hospital mortality.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ALPHEUS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related myonecrosis is frequent and can affect the long-term prognosis of patients. To our knowledge, ticagrelor has not been evaluated in elective PCI and could reduce periprocedural ischaemic complications compared with clopidogrel, the currently recommended treatment. The aim of the ALPHEUS study was to examine if ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing high-risk elective PCI. METHODS: The ALPHEUS study, a phase 3b, randomised, open-label trial, was done at 49 hospitals in France and Czech Republic. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were eligible for the study if they had an indication for PCI and at least one high-risk characteristic. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter for 30 days) or clopidogrel (300-600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter for 30 days) by use of an interactive web response system, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was a composite of PCI-related type 4 (a or b) myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both of which were evaluated within 48 h of PCI (or at hospital discharge if earlier). The primary analysis was based on all events that occurred in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617290. FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and May 28, 2020, 1910 patients were randomly assigned at 49 sites, 956 to the ticagrelor group and 954 to the clopidogrel group. 15 patients were excluded from the ticagrelor group and 12 from the clopidogrel group. At 48 h, the primary outcome was observed in 334 (35%) of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group and 341 (36%) of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·17; p=0·75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between the two groups, but minor bleeding events were more frequently observed with ticagrelor than clopidogrel at 30 days (105 [11%] of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group vs 71 [8%] of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group; OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·12-2·11; p=0·0070). INTERPRETATION: Ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective PCI and did not cause an increase in major bleeding, but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days. These results support the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care for elective PCI. FUNDING: ACTION Study Group and AstraZeneca.

Blunting periprocedural myocardial necrosis: Rationale and design of the randomized ALPHEUS study.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel associated with aspirin is the recommended treatment for patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although severe PCI-related events are rare, evidence suggests that PCI-related myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are frequent complications that can impact the clinical prognosis of the patients. Antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor such as ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural ischemic complications while maintaining a similar safety profile as compared with conventional dual antiplatelet therapy by aspirin and clopidogrel in this setting. METHODS: Assessment of Loading with the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting (ALPHEUS) (NCT02617290) is an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study in patients with stable coronary artery disease who are planned for an elective PCI. In total, 1,900 patients will be randomized before a planned PCI to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or a loading dose of clopidogrel (300 or 600 mg) in addition to aspirin. Patients will then receive a dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary ischemic end point is PCI-related myocardial infarction (myocardial infarction type 4a or 4b) or major myocardial injury within 48 hours (or at hospital discharge if earlier) after elective PCI/stent. Safety will be evaluated by major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) at 48 hours (or discharge if it occurs earlier). CONCLUSION: ALPHEUS is the first properly sized trial comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel in the setting of elective PCI and is especially designed to show a reduction in periprocedural events, a surrogate end point for mortality.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y12 inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel. METHODS: This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017. RESULTS: The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.

Characteristics and Survival Determinants in Patients After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in The Era of 24/7 Coronary Intervention Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates and outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain low despite investments of time and money. The goal of this analysis was to identify variables related to survival of patients transferred to our coronary care unit (CCU) after an OHCA. METHODS: 102 consecutive OHCA patients, mean age 64.6 (SD 13.3), 70.6% men, between January, 2011 and December, 2013, who were transferred to our tertiary care CCU, were studied. RESULTS: Cardiac-cause OHCA was present in 84 patients (82.4%). Of these 60.7% had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) - STEMI 35.7%; NSTEMI 23.8%. Coronary angiography was performed in 73 (71.6%) patients - 81% with cardiac- and 31.3% (5/16) with a non-cardiac cause. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 50 patients (68.5%), 49 with cardiac-cause, and succeeded in 92%. In-hospital mortality was 38.2%, one-year mortality was 51.5%. In-hospital and one-year mortality were related to age (p=0.002 resp. p=0.001), first ECG rhythm (p=0.001, resp. p=0.005), history of coronary artery disease (RR 2.1; p=0.026 resp. RR 1.71; p=0.029), and history of arrhythmia (supraventricular tachyarrhythmia, bradyarrhythmia) (RR 2.74; p=0.003 resp. RR 2.3; p=0.001). One-year mortality was also related to a history of diabetes mellitus (RR 1.89; p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Cardiac-cause was the most common cause of OHCA. Acute coronary syndrome was present in more than half of the cases. Availability of interventional facilities was a crucial factor in OHCA management. A history of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and arrhythmia were associated with worse survival.

Pretreatment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Although P2Y12 antagonists are effective in patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes, the effect of the timing of administration--before or after coronary angiography--is not known. We evaluated the effect of administering the P2Y12 antagonist prasugrel at the time of diagnosis versus administering it after the coronary angiography if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was indicated. METHODS: We enrolled 4033 patients with NSTE acute coronary syndromes and a positive troponin level who were scheduled to undergo coronary angiography within 2 to 48 hours after randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive prasugrel (a 30-mg loading dose) before the angiography (pretreatment group) or placebo (control group). When PCI was indicated, an additional 30 mg of prasugrel was given in the pretreatment group at the time of PCI and 60 mg of prasugrel was given in the control group. RESULTS: The rate of the primary efficacy end point, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor rescue therapy (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout) through day 7, did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio with pretreatment, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.25; P=0.81). The rate of the key safety end point of all Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, whether related or not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), through day 7 was increased with pretreatment (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19 to 3.02; P=0.006). The rates of TIMI major bleeding and life-threatening bleeding not related to CABG were increased by a factor of 3 and 6, respectively. Pretreatment did not reduce the rate of the primary outcome among patients undergoing PCI (69% of the patients) but increased the rate of TIMI major bleeding at 7 days. All the results were confirmed at 30 days and in prespecified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NSTE acute coronary syndromes who were scheduled to undergo catheterization, pretreatment with prasugrel did not reduce the rate of major ischemic events up to 30 days but increased the rate of major bleeding complications. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly; ACCOAST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01015287.).

Antiplatelet efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel, ticagrelor, clopidogrel) in patients treated with mild therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest due to acute myocardial infarction.

Survivors after cardiac arrest (CA) due to AMI undergo PCI and then receive dual antiplatelet therapy. Mild therapeutic hypothermia (MTH) is recommended for unconscious patients after CA to improve neurological outcomes. MTH can attenuate the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors by reducing gastrointestinal absorption and metabolic activation. The combined effect of these conditions on the efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitors is unknown. We compared the antiplatelet efficacies of new P2Y12 inhibitors in AMI patients after CA treated with MTH. Forty patients after CA for AMI treated with MTH and received one P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor) were enrolled in a prospective observational single-center study. Platelet inhibition was measured by VASP (PRI) on days 1, 2, and 3 after drug administration. In-hospital clinical data and 1-year survival data were obtained. The proportion of patients with ineffective platelet inhibition (PRI > 50 %, high on-treatment platelet reactivity) for clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor was 77 vs. 19 vs. 1 % on day 1; 77 vs. 17 vs. 0 % on day 2; and 85 vs. 6 vs. 0 % on day 3 (P < 0.001). The platelet inhibition was significantly worse in clopidogrel group than in prasugrel or ticagrelor group. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are very effective for platelet inhibition in patients treated with MTH after CA due to AMI, but clopidogrel is not. Using prasugrel or ticagrelor seems to be a more suitable option in this high-risk group of acute patients.

Serum Dickkopf-1 signaling and calcium deposition in aortic valve are significantly related to the presence of concomitant coronary atherosclerosis in patients with symptomatic calcified aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to assess serum RANKL:OPG ratio, Dkk-1 and deposition of calcium in aortic valve in relation to the presence of concomitant coronary atherosclerosis in patients with symptomatic calcified aortic stenosis (CAS). METHODS: OPG, soluble RANKL and Dkk-1 were measured in 218 consecutive patients who were undergoing cardiac catheterization because of symptomatic CAS. Values of studied compounds were compared between patients without (Group A) and with (Group B) coronary atherosclerosis. Computed tomography derived Agatston score was assessed by using 256-slice CT. RESULTS: Presence of coronary atherosclerosis was related to significantly (p = 0.007) higher OPG and to significantly (p = 0.004) lower Dkk-1. Coronary atherosclerosis was also associated with a trend towards a decrease of RANKL. RANKL/OPG Ratios (mean (95% C.I.)) were: 20.04 (16.58; 24.23) in Group A and 12.69 (9.96; 16.17) in Group B, resp., p = 0.018). After adjustment, the difference in RANKL:OPG ratios was no longer significant. Multivariable regression underscored the significance of difference in Dkk-1 (pafter adjustement = 0.020). Group A patients had significantly higher Dkk-1, significantly higher deposition of calcium in aortic valve and were symptomatic in significantly younger age (p < 0.001) as compared to group B patients: Agatston score (mean (95% C.I.)) 4069.9 (3211.8; 5134.5) and 2413.5 (1821.3; 3198.1), p = 0.007. CONCLUSIONS: Dkk-1 and deposition of calcium in aortic valve differ significantly in relation to the presence/absence of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with symptomatic CAS. A positive association was found between Dkk-1 and calcium load in aortic valve in patients with symptomatic CAS and angiographically normal coronary arteries.

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI. RESULTS: Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Loading Time Before Elective PCI and the Prevention of Myocardial Necrosis.

BACKGROUND: There are dated and conflicting data about the optimal timing of initiation of P2Y12 inhibitors in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peri-PCI myocardial necrosis is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to assess the impact of the P2Y12 inhibitor loading time on periprocedural myocardial necrosis in the population of the randomized Assessment of Loading With the P2Y12 Inhibitor Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel to Halt Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Stenting (ALPHEUS) trial, which compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel in high-risk patients who received elective PCI. METHODS: The ALPHEUS trial divided 1809 patients into quartiles of loading time. The ALPHEUS primary outcome was used (type 4 [a or b] myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury) as well as the main secondary outcome (type 4 [a or b] myocardial infarction or any type of myocardial injury). RESULTS: Patients in the first quartile group (Q1) presented higher rates of the primary outcome (P = 0.01). When compared with Q1, incidences of the primary outcome decreased in patients with longer loading times (adjusted odds ratio [adjOR], 0.70 [0.52.-0.95]; P = 0.02 for Q2; adjOR 0.65 [0.48-0.88]; P < 0.01 for Q3; adjOR 0.66 [0.49-0.89]; P < 0.01 for Q4). Concordant results were found for the main secondary outcome. There was no interaction with the study drug allocated by randomization (clopidogrel or ticagrelor). Bleeding complications (any bleeding ranging between 4.9% and 7.3% and only 1 major bleeding at 48 hours) and clinical ischemic events were rare and did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elective PCI, administration of the oral P2Y12 inhibitor at the time of PCI could be associated with more frequent periprocedural myocardial necrosis than an earlier administration. The long-term clinical consequences remain unknown.

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor in chronic coronary syndrome patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can prevent cardiovascular events is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate outcomes of complex PCI and the efficacy of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in stable patients randomized in the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading with the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting) trial. METHODS: All PCI procedures were blindly reviewed and classified as complex if they had at least 1 of the following criteria: stent length >60 mm, 2-stent bifurcation, left main, bypass graft, chronic total occlusion, use of atherectomy or guiding catheter extensions, multiwire technique, multiple stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of type 4a or b myocardial infarction (MI) and major myocardial injury during the 48 hours after PCI. We compared the event rates according to the presence or not of complex PCI criteria and evaluated the interaction with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. RESULTS: Among the 1,866 patients randomized, 910 PCI (48.3%) were classified as complex PCI. The primary endpoint was more frequent in complex PCI (45.6% vs 26.6%; P < 0.001) driven by higher rates of type 4 MI and angiographic complications (12.2% vs 4.8 %; P < 0.001 and 19.3% vs 8.6%; P < 0.05, respectively). The composite of death, MI, and stroke at 48 hours (12.7% vs 5.1 %; P < 0.05) and at 30 days (13.4% vs 5.3%; P < 0.05) was more frequent in complex PCI. No interaction was found between PCI complexity and the randomized treatment for the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.47) nor the secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic coronary syndrome, patients undergoing a complex PCI have higher rates of periprocedural and cardiovascular events that are not reduced by ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel.

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Clopidogrel-Naive Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy before undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading With the P2Y12 Inhibitor Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel to Halt Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Stenting) trial, patients were defined as clopidogrel(+) and clopidogrel(-) according to the presence and absence of clopidogrel treatment for ≥7 days before PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint was the composite of PCI-related myocardial infarction and major injury as defined by the third and fourth universal definition 48 hours after PCI. RESULTS: A total of 1,882 patients were included, 805 (42.7%) of whom were clopidogrel(+). These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had more frequent features of complex PCI. The primary endpoint was less frequently present in clopidogrel(-) compared to clopidogrel(+) patients (32.8% vs 40.0%; OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.88), but no significant differences were reported for the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack at 48 hours or 30 days. Ticagrelor did not reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis or the risk of adverse outcomes, and there was no significant interaction regarding the presence of chronic clopidogrel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel-naive patients presented less periprocedural complications compared to clopidogrel(+) patients, a difference related to a lower risk profile and less complex PCI. The absence of clopidogrel at baseline did not affect the absence of a difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in terms of PCI-related complications supporting the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care in elective PCI in patients with or without chronic clopidogrel treatment.