Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of TWILIGHT and TICO Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor coupled with aspirin for 1 year is the recommended treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As an alternative, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials that included patients with ACS undergoing PCI treated with an initial 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor monotherapy versus continued ticagrelor plus aspirin. Patients sustaining a major ischemic or bleeding event in the first 3 months after PCI were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurring between 3 and 12 months after index PCI. The key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression with a one-stage approach in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The pooled cohort (n=7529) had a mean age of 62.8 years, 23.2% were female, and 55% presented with biomarker-positive ACS. Between 3 and 12 months, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (0.8% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.24-0.56]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between groups (2.4% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68-1.21]; P=0.515). Findings were unchanged among patients presenting with biomarker-positive ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have completed a 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy, discontinuation of aspirin followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced major bleeding without incremental ischemic risk compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42023449646.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR.

BACKGROUND: The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P = 0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785.).

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Prognostic impact of in-stent restenosis in normal weight, overweight, and obese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in-stent restenosis (ISR) is related with a worse prognosis, while higher body mass index (BMI) values are associated with better outcomes. It is unclear whether the prognostic impact of ISR varies in function of BMI. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCI at a large center from 2012 to 2019 not presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) were included. Subjects with BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 or treated with bare metal stents were excluded. Patients were stratified according to type of lesion treated (ISR vs. no-ISR) and into four BMI categories: normal weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2 ), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2 ), class I obesity (30.0-34.9 kg/m2 ), class II-III obesity (≥35.0 kg/m2 ). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS: Out of 16,234 patients, 3694 (23%) underwent PCI for ISR. ISR as compared to no-ISR was associated with a consistent increased risk of MACE within the normal weight (18.8% vs. 7.8%, adj. hazard ratio (HR): 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-2.64), overweight (19.1% vs. 6.4%, adj. HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.91-2.88), class I obesity (18.3% vs. 6.8%, adj. HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.47-2.57), and class II-III obesity (16.4% vs. 7.4%, adj. HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.09-2.37) groups (interaction p-value: 0.192). The ISR-related risks were mostly driven by an excess of TVR. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, ISR was associated with an increased risk of MACE irrespective of BMI, mostly due to an excess of TVR after ISR.

Prognostic impact of peripheral artery disease in patients with and without high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of PAD according to high bleeding risk (HBR) status. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent implantation at a tertiary-care center (Mount Sinai Hospital) between 2012 and 2019 were stratified according to HBR and PAD status. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke 1 year after PCI. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding. RESULTS: Out of 16,750 patients, 43% were HBR and 57% were no-HBR. Within the two groups, PAD patients were 14% and 6%, respectively, and were more likely to have comorbidities and to undergo complex PCI than no-PAD patients. Within the HBR group, PAD was associated with an increased risk of MACE (11.4% vs. 7.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-1.99, p < 0.001) and a numerical nonsignificant increase of major bleeding (8.5% vs. 6.9%, HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.98-1.59, p = 0.066) as compared with no-PAD. Among no-HBR patients, rates of MACE and major bleeding were numerically but not significantly higher in the PAD group. After multivariable adjustment, PAD was no longer a predictor of adverse outcomes, irrespective of HBR status. CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year after PCI, PAD was associated with increased 1-year risks of MACE in HBR patients. After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, the effect of PAD on adverse events was largely attenuated.

Correction: A missense variant in Mitochondrial Amidoxime Reducing Component 1 gene and protection against liver disease.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008629.].

Fatal, ischemic and bleeding risk of patients meeting the selection criteria of the TWILIGHT trial: Insights from a large PCI registry.

BACKGROUND: The TWILIGHT trial (NCT02270242) demonstrated that in selected high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding complications without ischemic harm as compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin after 3-month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The aim of this analysis was to assess the applicability of the findings TWILIGHT trial to a real-world population. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCI at a tertiary center between 2012 and 2019 and not meeting any TWILIGHT exclusion criterion (oral anticoagulation treatment, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [MI], cardiogenic shock, dialysis, prior stroke, or thrombocytopenia) were included. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on whether they fulfilled the TWILIGHT inclusion criteria (high-risk) or not (low-risk). The primary outcome was all-cause death; the key secondary outcomes were MI and major bleeding at 1 year after PCI. RESULTS: Out of 13,136 included patients, 11,018 (83%) were at high risk. At 1-year, these patients had an approximately 3 folds greater hazard of death (1.4% vs 0.4%, HR 3.63, 95% CI 1.70-7.77) and MI (1.8% vs 0.6%, HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.56-5.04) and a nearly 2 folds higher risk of major bleeding (3.3% vs 1.8%, HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32-2.62) as compared to low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Among patients not meeting the TWILIGHT exclusion criteria from a large PCI registry, the high-risk inclusion criteria of the TWILIGHT trial were met by the majority of patients and were associated with an increased risk of mortality and MI and a moderately elevated risk of bleeding.

Impact of complex percutaneous coronary intervention features on clinical outcomes in patients with or without chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at higher risk of ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Complex PCI (CPCI) is associated with higher rates of ischemic complications. Whether CPCI confers an additive risk of adverse events in CKD patients is unclear. METHODS: Patients who underwent PCI at a single tertiary-care-center between 2012 and 2019 were stratified by CKD status and CPCI. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target-vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and major bleeding. RESULTS: Out of 15,071 patients, 4537 (30.1%) had CKD and 10,534 (69.9%) had no CKD. Patients undergoing CPCI were 1151 (25.4%) and 2983 (28.3%) in the two cohorts, respectively. At one year, CPCI compared with no CPCI was associated with higher risk of MACE in both CKD (Adj. HR 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.06, p < 0.001) and no-CKD patients (Adj. hazard ratios [HR] 2.19, 95% CI 1.91-2.51, p < 0.001; p of interaction 0.057), determined by an excess of death, MI and TVR in CKD patients and of TVR and MI only in no-CKD. CPCI was related with a consistent increase of major bleeding in the CKD (Adj. HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.18-1.87, p < 0.001) and no-CKD group (Adj. HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.98-1.54, p = 0.071, p of interaction 0.206). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up, CPCI was associated with higher risk of MACE and major bleeding irrespective of concomitant CKD. CPCI predicted mortality in CKD patients only.

A missense variant in Mitochondrial Amidoxime Reducing Component 1 gene and protection against liver disease.

Analyzing 12,361 all-cause cirrhosis cases and 790,095 controls from eight cohorts, we identify a common missense variant in the Mitochondrial Amidoxime Reducing Component 1 gene (MARC1 p.A165T) that associates with protection from all-cause cirrhosis (OR 0.91, p = 2.3*10-11). This same variant also associates with lower levels of hepatic fat on computed tomographic imaging and lower odds of physician-diagnosed fatty liver as well as lower blood levels of alanine transaminase (-0.025 SD, 3.7*10-43), alkaline phosphatase (-0.025 SD, 1.2*10-37), total cholesterol (-0.030 SD, p = 1.9*10-36) and LDL cholesterol (-0.027 SD, p = 5.1*10-30) levels. We identified a series of additional MARC1 alleles (low-frequency missense p.M187K and rare protein-truncating p.R200Ter) that also associated with lower cholesterol levels, liver enzyme levels and reduced risk of cirrhosis (0 cirrhosis cases for 238 R200Ter carriers versus 17,046 cases of cirrhosis among 759,027 non-carriers, p = 0.04) suggesting that deficiency of the MARC1 enzyme may lower blood cholesterol levels and protect against cirrhosis.

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab and evolocumab: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapy with alirocumab or evolocumab on individual clinical efficacy and safety endpoints remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alirocumab and evolocumab in patients with dyslipidaemia or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatment with alirocumab or evolocumab vs. placebo or other lipid-lowering therapies up to March 2018. Primary efficacy endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. We included 39 RCTs comprising 66 478 patients of whom 35 896 were treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (14 639 with alirocumab and 21 257 with evolocumab) and 30 582 with controls. Mean weighted follow-up time across trials was 2.3 years with an exposure time of 150 617 patient-years. Overall, the effects of PCSK9 inhibition on all-cause death and cardiovascular death were not statistically significant (P = 0.15 and P = 0.34, respectively). Proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors were associated with lower risk of MI (1.49 vs. 1.93 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86; I  2 = 0%; P < 0.0001), ischaemic stroke (0.44 vs. 0.58 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.89; I  2 = 0%; P = 0.0005), and coronary revascularization (2.16 vs. 2.64 per 100 patient-year; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78-0.89; I  2 = 0%; P < 0.0001), compared with the control group. Use of these PCSK9 inhibitors was not associated with increased risk of neurocognitive adverse events (P = 0.91), liver enzymes elevations (P = 0.34), rhabdomyolysis (P = 0.58), or new-onset diabetes mellitus (P = 0.97). CONCLUSION: Proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibition with alirocumab or evolocumab was associated with lower risk of MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization, with favourable safety profile.

A contemporary simple risk score for prediction of contrast-associated acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention: derivation and validation from an observational registry.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-associated acute kidney injury can occur after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prediction of the contrast-associated acute kidney injury risk is important for a tailored prevention and mitigation strategy. We sought to develop a simple risk score to estimate contrast-associated acute kidney injury risk based on a large contemporary PCI cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a large tertiary care centre between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2020, with available creatinine measurements both before and within 48 h after the procedure, were included; only patients on chronic dialysis were excluded. Patients treated between 2012 and 2017 comprised the derivation cohort and those treated between 2018 and 2020 formed the validation cohort. The primary endpoint was contrast-associated acute kidney injury, defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network. Independent predictors of contrast-associated acute kidney injury were derived from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Model 1 included only pre-procedural variables, whereas Model 2 also included procedural variables. A weighted integer score based on the effect estimate of each independent variable was used to calculate the final risk score for each patient. The impact of contrast-associated acute kidney injury on 1-year deaths was also evaluated. FINDINGS: 32 378 PCI procedures were performed and screened for inclusion in the present analysis. After the exclusion of patients without paired creatinine measurements, patients on chronic dialysis, and multiple procedures, 14 616 patients were included in the derivation cohort (mean age 66·2 years, 29·2% female) and 5606 were included in the validation cohort (mean age 67·0 years, 26·4% female). Contrast-associated acute kidney injury occurred in 860 (4·3%) patients. Independent predictors of contrast-associated acute kidney injury included in Model 1 were: clinical presentation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, haemoglobin, basal glucose, congestive heart failure, and age. Additional independent predictors in Model 2 were: contrast volume, peri-procedural bleeding, no flow or slow flow post procedure, and complex PCI anatomy. The occurrence of contrast-associated acute kidney injury in the derivation cohort increased gradually from the lowest to the highest of the four risk score groups in both models (2·3% to 34·9% in Model 1, and 2·0% to 38·8% in Model 2). Inclusion of procedural variables in the model only slightly improved the discrimination of the risk score (C-statistic in the derivation cohort: 0·72 for Model 1 and 0·74 for model 2; in the validation cohort: 0·84 for Model 1 and 0·86 for Model 2). The risk of 1-year deaths significantly increased in patients with contrast-associated acute kidney injury (10·2% vs 2·5%; adjusted hazard ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·31-2·36; p=0·0002), which was mainly due to excess 30-day deaths. INTERPRETATION: A contemporary simple risk score based on readily available variables from patients undergoing PCI can accurately discriminate the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, the occurrence of which is strongly associated with subsequent death. FUNDING: None.

Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points. RESULTS: We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, -0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.).

Performance of the academic research consortium high-bleeding risk criteria in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction.

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at increased risk for thrombotic and bleeding complications compared to patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The academic research consortium (ARC) recently suggested a set of criteria to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). We sought to evaluate the performance of the ARC-HBR criteria among patients undergoing PCI according to clinical presentation. We included all consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a tertiary-care center. Patients were deemed at HBR if they fulfilled ≥ 1 major or ≥ 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. The primary bleeding endpoint was a composite of in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death and myocardial infarction. Out of 6068 patients, 1391 (22.9 %) presented with AMI and were more often at HBR than those with CCS (46.9 % vs. 43.0 %, p = 0.01). HBR patients had a higher risk for the primary bleeding endpoint than non-HBR, irrespective of the clinical indication for PCI (AMI: 19.5 % vs. 5.5 %; HR 3.86, 95 % CI 2.63-5.69; CCS: 6.8 % vs. 2.6 %; HR 2.65, 95 % CI 1.92-3.68; p-interaction = 0.11). Secondary outcomes followed a similar trend. After multivariable adjustment, AMI presentation remained significantly associated with increased risk for bleeding at 1 year (HR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.13-2.38, p = 0.01). The ARC-HBR criterion associated with the highest bleeding risk was severe/end-stage chronic kidney disease in AMI and moderate/severe anemia in CCS. The ARC-HBR framework successfully identified AMI and CCS patients with increased risk for bleeding complications at 1 year post-PCI. Figure prepared with BioRender.

Perioperative risk and antiplatelet management in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery within 1 year of PCI.

Perioperative cardiovascular complications are important causes of morbidity and mortality associated with non-cardiac surgery, especially in patients with recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to illustrate the types and timing of different surgeries occurring after PCI, and to evaluate the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events according to the perioperative antiplatelet management. Patients undergoing urgent or elective non-cardiac surgery within 1 year of PCI at a tertiary-care center between 2011 and 2018 were included. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) at 30 days. Perioperative bleeding was defined as ≥ 2 units of blood transfusion. A total of 1092 surgeries corresponding to 747 patients were classified by surgical risk (low: 50.9%, intermediate: 38.4%, high: 10.7%) and priority (elective: 88.5%, urgent/emergent: 11.5%). High-risk and urgent/emergent surgeries tended to occur earlier post-PCI compared to low-risk and elective ones, and were associated with an increased risk of both MACE and bleeding. Preoperative interruption of antiplatelet therapy (of any kind) occurred in 44.6% of all NCS and was more likely for procedures occurring later post-PCI and at intermediate risk. There was no significant association between interruption of antiplatelet therapy and adverse cardiac events. Among patients undergoing NCS within 1 year of PCI, perioperative ischemic and bleeding events primarily depend on the estimated surgical risk and urgency of the procedure, which are increased early after PCI. Preoperative antiplatelet interruption was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac events.

Assessment and validation of a novel fast fully automated artificial intelligence left ventricular ejection fraction quantification software.

BACKGROUND: Quantification of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is operator-dependent, time-consuming, and error-prone. LVivoEF by DIA is a new artificial intelligence (AI) software, which displays the tracking of endocardial borders and rapidly quantifies LVEF. We sought to assess the accuracy of LVivoEF compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) as the reference standard and to compare LVivoEF to the standard-of-care physician-measured LVEF (MD-EF) including studies with ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs). METHODS: In 273 consecutive patients, we compared MD-EF and AI-derived LVEF to cMRI. AI-derived LVEF was obtained from a non-UEA four-chamber view without manual correction. Thirty-one patients were excluded: 25 had interval interventions or incomplete TTE or cMRI studies and six had uninterpretable non-UEA apical views. RESULTS: In the 242 subjects, the correlation between AI and cMRI was r = .890, similar to MD-EF and cMRI with r = .891 (p = 0.48). Of the 126 studies performed with UEAs, the correlation of AI using the unenhanced four-chamber view was r = .89, similar to MD-EF with r = .90. In the 116 unenhanced studies, AI correlation was r = .87, similar to MD-EF with r = .84. From Bland-Altman analysis, LVivoEF underreported the LVEF with a bias of 3.63 ± 7.40% EF points compared to cMRI while MD-EF to cMRI had a bias of .33 ± 7.52% (p = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to cMRI, LVivoEF can accurately quantify LVEF from a standard apical four-chamber view without manual correction. Thus, LVivoEF has the ability to improve and expedite LVEF quantification.

Ticagrelor monotherapy in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: TWILIGHT-HBR.

AIMS: Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77) with similar relative (Pinteraction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [-5.1% vs. -2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) -2.8%, 95% CI -6.4% to 0.8%, P = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (-3.5% vs. -0.5%; difference in ARDs -3.0%, 95% CI -5.2% to -0.8%, P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status. CONCLUSIONS: Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients.

Ticagrelor monotherapy in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: TWILIGHT-CKD.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prespecified subanalysis of the TWILIGHT trial, we evaluated the treatment effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin according to renal function. The trial enrolled patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation who fulfilled at least one clinical and one angiographic high-risk criterion. Chronic kidney disease, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, was a clinical study entry criterion. Following a 3-month period of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo on top of ticagrelor for an additional 12 months. Of the 6835 patients randomized and with available eGFR at baseline, 1111 (16.3%) had CKD. Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in both patients with [4.6% vs. 9.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.80] and without (4.0% vs. 6.7%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75; Pinteraction = 0.508) CKD, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the former group. Rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between the two randomized groups irrespective of the presence (7.9% vs. 5.7%; HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.88-2.22) or absence of (3.2% vs. 3.6%; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.20; Pinteraction = 0.111) CKD. CONCLUSION: Among CKD patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.