Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Age- and Weight-Adapted Dose of Prasugrel Versus Standard Dose of Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800). DESIGN: Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. SETTING: 23 centers in Germany and Italy. PATIENTS: 3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group). MEASUREMENTS: The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2). LIMITATION: The study is a subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.

Plasma Soluble Glycoprotein VI, Platelet Function, Bleeding, and Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycoprotein VI (GPVI) is the major platelet-specific collagen receptor. GPVI shedding with generation of soluble GPVI (sGPVI) is an endogenous feedback mechanism preventing platelet overstimulation. sGPVI has not been investigated in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially regarding its potential value as a predictor of ischemic and bleeding risk. METHODS: Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were available in 318 patients with CCS undergoing PCI. Platelet function was assessed by measuring both adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Co-primary endpoints were a composite of death or myocardial injury at 48 hours after PCI, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation between sGPVI and platelet function at baseline or at 48 hours after PCI and loading with antiplatelet drugs. Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were not associated with the ischemic risk: the incidence of the ischemic endpoint was 25.0% in the lower, 22.9% in the middle, and 26.7% in the upper sGPVI tertile (p = 0.82). There was a significant nonlinear relationship between sGPVI and the risk of bleeding: the incidence of the bleeding endpoint was 11.8% in the lower, 12.6% in the middle, and 26.4% in the upper sGPVI tertile (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In patients with CCS undergoing PCI, plasma levels of sGPVI did not correlate with ADP- or collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Patients with higher baseline levels of sGPVI may carry an increased risk of bleeding at 30 days after PCI but no excess risk of ischemic events.

Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Association of De Ritis Ratio with Prognosis in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Aminotransferase Activity within and outside the Healthy Values of Reference Range.

BACKGROUND: The aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (De Ritis ratio), obtained from AST and ALT activities in the healthy range, has not been studied in association with mortality. METHODS: This study included 3392 patients with stable coronary heart disease and aminotransferase activity in the reference range. Patients are categorized into two groups: a group with AST and ALT activity in the healthy range (n = 1697), and a group with AST and/or ALT activity outside the healthy range but in the reference range (n = 1695). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at three years. RESULTS: The De Ritis ratio (median 5th-95th percentile] was 0.94 [0.61-1.41] in patients with AST and ALT in the healthy range and 0.93 [0.45-1.96] in patients with AST and/or ALT outside the healthy range (p = 0.700). At three years, there were 86 deaths in patients with AST and ALT in the healthy range: 27 deaths (3.9%) in patients with a De Ritis ratio ≤median, and 59 deaths (8.2%) in patients with the De Ritis ratio >median (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.42; p = 0.159); in patients with AST and/or ALT outside the healthy range, there were 148 deaths: 49 deaths (6.6%) in patients with a De Ritis ratio ≤median, and 99 deaths (14.1%) in patients with De Ritis ratio >median (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.09-1.48], p = 0.002), with both HRs calculated per unit higher values of the De Ritis ratio. CONCLUSIONS: The De Ritis ratio obtained from AST and ALT activity in the healthy range was not independently associated with higher risk of mortality. The De Ritis ratio obtained from aminotransferase activity outside the healthy range (but still in the reference range) was independently associated with the risk of mortality.

The effect of a Prasugrel- vs. a Ticagrelor-based strategy on total ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: The effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy on total (including both first and recurrent) ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the treatment effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy when both first and recurrent non-fatal ischaemic and bleeding events are taken into account. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 randomized control trial, including all 4018 patients in the trial. The main clinical endpoints of interest included ischaemic events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke] and bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding]. An additional endpoint of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. The effect of the prasugrel vs. ticagrelor based strategies on these endpoints was evaluated on both time-to-first event and total events analyses. Patients in the prasugrel group had a lower risk of MI in comparison to the ticagrelor group on both time-to-first event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.85] and total events [HR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86)] analysis. The risk of BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding was comparable between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups on both time-to-first event [HR = 0.96 (0.75-1.25)] and total events [HR = 0.99 (0.76-1.31)] analysis. CONCLUSION: A prasugrel based strategy was associated with a reduction in total MI events in comparison to a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing invasive assessment. Total BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding events were comparable between the two groups. Given the importance of this topic, future studies to confirm these findings would be welcome. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01944800.

Derivation and validation of the ISAR score to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention for recurrent drug-eluting stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is challenging as it has a high risk of recurrence. AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for recurrent DES-ISR. METHODS: A retrospective, observational analysis was performed including consecutive patients treated with PCI for DES-ISR at two centres in Germany. Included patients were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. Two regression analyses identified factors associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR up to 1 year. The discriminative ability of the resultant model was then compared to a benchmark ISR classification model using bootstrap resampling. A classification and regression tree analysis and a numerical scoring system (the ISAR score) were used to predict the risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR based on the identified predictors. RESULTS: We included 1,986 patients in the current analysis, divided randomly into training (1,471 patients, 1,778 lesions) and validation (515 patients, 614 lesions) cohorts. Four factor variables (a non-focal ISR pattern, a time interval to ISR of <6 months, ISR of the left circumflex artery and ISR in a calcified vessel) were associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. On bootstrap resampling analysis, the C-statistic for the model including these four variables was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.63), whereas the C-statistic for the benchmark ISR classification model was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.57), a difference that was statistically significant (delta C-statistic 0.062; 95% CI: 0.035-0.094; p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR was over three times higher in DES-ISR lesions with an ISAR score of ≥3 in comparison to lesions with an ISAR score of 0. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed and validated a risk prediction model for repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. This model served to generate the ISAR score, a standardised tool that can be used to predict the 1-year risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR.

Modified balloons to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The performance of modified balloons (namely cutting or scoring balloons) to prepare severely calcified lesions in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We investigated the clinical and imaging outcomes of patients undergoing PCI assigned to modified balloon therapy to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stent implantation. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we aggregated the study-level data from trials enrolling invasively treated patients who were randomly assigned to modified balloon or control therapy to prepare severely calcified lesions before stenting. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, coronary perforation and final minimal stent area (MSA) as measured by intracoronary imaging. RESULTS: A total of 648 participants in six trials were allocated to modified balloon therapy (n = 335) or control therapy (semi-compliant, non-compliant, or super high-pressure balloon, n = 313). The median follow-up was 11 months. Overall, MACE occurred in 8.96% of patients assigned to a modified balloon and 12.78% of patients assigned to control therapy [risk ratio = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.39; P = 0.24]. There was a significant treatment effect-by-modified balloon type interaction for the outcome MACE in patients assigned to cutting balloon compared with control therapy [RR = 0.40 (0.28-0.56), P for interaction (Pint) < 0.001]. Patients treated with a modified balloon compared with control therapy showed neither a significant difference for the other clinical outcomes nor for final MSA [standardized mean difference = 0.67 (- 0.71, 2.06); P = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with PCI for severely calcific coronary artery disease a strategy of lesion preparation with a modified balloon before stenting does not improve clinical or imaging outcomes compared with control therapy. The different performance of cutting and scoring balloons warrants further investigation.

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined. METHODS: This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 109/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 109/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 109/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p = 0.138, p int = 0.102). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with off-hour versus on-hour presentation: a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (Pint = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Alkaline phosphatase and prognosis in patients with diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The association between alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) remains poorly investigated. METHODS: The study included 1426 patients with DM and IHD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided in groups according to tertiles of ALP activity: a group with ALP activity in 1st tertile (ALP activity: 20.8-65.0 U/L; n = 478), a group with ALP activity in 2nd tertile (ALP activity: 65.1-87.0 U/L; n = 473) and a group with ALP activity in 3rd tertile (ALP activity: 87.1-1520 U/L; n = 475). The primary endpoint was 3-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: At 3 years, all-cause deaths occurred in 182 patients: 50 deaths (12.4%) in patients of 1st tertile, 47 deaths (11.7%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 85 deaths (20.8%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.42, P = 0.031); cardiac deaths occurred in 110 patients: 28 deaths (7.0%) in patients of 1st tertile, 30 deaths (7.6%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 52 deaths (12.7%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.04-1.56], P = 0.021, with both risk estimates calculated for unit increment in the log scale of ALP activity). The C-statistic of the multivariable model with baseline data without and with ALP was 0.787 [0.750-0.818] and 0.804 [0.757-0.851], (P = 0.575) for all-cause mortality and 0.832 [0.798-0.864] and 0.876 [0.833-0.918], (P = 0.115) for cardiac mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DM and IHD, elevated ALP activity was associated with increased risk of 3-year mortality.

One-Year Ischemic and Bleeding Events According to Renal Function in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Third-Generation Antiplatelet Drugs.

The optimal antiplatelet therapy of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown. This study included 2,364 patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing predominantly percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The primary end point was 1-year mortality. Overall, there were 85 deaths (3.6%): 6 deaths (17.1%) in patients with eGFR <30, 31 deaths (6.9%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 34 deaths (3.0%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 14 deaths (2.0%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.31; p = 0.033 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrement in the eGFR. Bleeding occurred in 129 patients (5.5%): 7 bleeds (20.2%) in patients with eGFR <30, 36 bleeds (8.0%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 64 bleeds (5.6%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 22 bleeds (3.1%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2; adjusted HR=1.11 (1.01 to 1.23); p = 0.045 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrement in the eGFR. One-year mortality and bleeding did not differ significantly between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function. In conclusion, in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents and third-generation antiplatelet drugs, impaired renal function was independently associated with higher risk of 1-year mortality and bleeding. The ischemic and bleeding risks appear to differ little between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function.

Meta-Analysis of Short vs. Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and Role of Continuation with either Aspirin or a P2Y12 Inhibitor Thereafter.

AIM: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is an ongoing debate and novel data has emerged. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess outcomes of short vs. control DAPT duration. In addition, the role of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after DAPT with either aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was analyzed. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ≤ 3 months with ≥ 6 months DAPT after DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding. In addition, we performed an analysis on studies who continued with either aspirin or P2Y12 monotherapy after DAPT. RESULTS: 9 RCTs comprising 41,864 patients were included and we analyzed a short DAPT duration of median 1.5 months vs. 12.1 months in the control group. The risk for ST was similar with short vs. control DAPT duration (0.5 vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio 1.17[95% CI 0.89-1.54]; p=0.26). Bleeding was significantly reduced with short vs. control DAPT duration (1.9 vs. 3.0%; 0.65[0.54-0.77]; p＜0.0001).ST was not different between short vs. control DAPT duration in the analysis of the 4 RCTs who continued with aspirin after DAPT and the 5 P2Y12 RCTs, respectively, and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.861). Bleeding was also reduced with short vs. control DAPT in both the aspirin (1.2 vs. 1.7%; 0.71[0.51-0.99]; p=0.04) and P2Y12 inhibitor studies (2.1 vs. 3.4%; 0.62[0.47-0.80]; p=0.0003) and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.515). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that short DAPT ≤ 3 months followed by SAPT reduces bleeding and is not associated with an increase in ST. The results were consistent within the aspirin and P2Y12 SAPT studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Women and Men with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pre-specified, Sex-Specific Analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 Trial.

AIM: Sex-specific analyses of direct head-to-head comparisons between newer P2Y12 inhibitors are limited. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in women and men with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) planned for an invasive strategy. METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 956 women and 3,062 men with ACS randomly assigned to either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was the 12-month incidence of bleeding (type 3-5 according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC]). RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 42 women (8.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 39 women (8.3%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.70, P=0.657) and in 142 men (9.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 98 men (6.5%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.47 [1.13-1.90], P=0.004; P for interaction [Pint]=0.275). BARC type 3-5 bleeding occurred in 36 women (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and 34 women (9.7%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.04 [0.65-1.67], P=0.856) and in 59 men in the ticagrelor group (4.4%) and 46 men (3.6%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.24 [0.85-1.83], P=0.266; Pint=0.571). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect of study drugs, the superior efficacy of prasugrel was more evident among men. No difference in bleeding between the two study groups was seen for both women and men.

Prior Myocardial Infarction and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes - A Post-hoc Analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 Trial.

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.37). With regard to the secondary safety end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.56-2.91) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82-1.55) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Periprocedural myocardial injury according to optical characteristics of neointima and treatment modality of in-stent restenosis.

AIMS: Aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of increasing neointimal inhomogeneity and neoatherosclerosis as well as of treatment modality of in-stent restenosis (ISR) on the occurrence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with normal or stable/falling increased baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) undergoing intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) and subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ISR by means of drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) were included. Overall, 128 patients were subdivided into low (n = 64) and high (n = 64) inhomogeneity groups, based on the median of distribution of non-homogeneous quadrants. No significant between-group differences were detected in terms of hs-cTnT changes (28.0 [12.0-65.8] vs. 25.5 [9.8-65.0] ng/L; p = 0.355), or the incidence of major PMI (31.2 vs. 31.2%; p = 1.000). Similarly, no differences were observed between DCB- and DES-treated groups in terms of hs-cTn changes (27.0 [10.0-64.0] vs. 28.0 [11.0-73.0] ng/L; p = 0.795), or the incidence of major PMI (28.9 vs. 35.6%; p = 0.566). Additionally, no significant interaction was present between optical neointimal characteristics and treatment modality in terms of changes in hs-cTnT (Pint = 0.432). No significant differences in PMI occurrence were observed between low and high neoatherosclerosis subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI for ISR, there was no association between increasing neointimal inhomogeneity, or increasing expression of neoatherosclerotic changes and occurrence of PMI. PMI occurrence was not influenced by the treatment modality (DCB vs. DES) of ISR lesions, a finding that supports the safety of DCB treatment for ISR.

Prediction of risk for bleeding, myocardial infarction and mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Whether bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI) improve the performance of risk prediction models for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown. METHODS: This study included 3377 patients with ACS who underwent PCI in the setting of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Patients with bleeding, MI or those dying at 1 year after PCI were characterized in terms of baseline characteristics, risk estimates and C-statistic of the risk prediction models for these outcomes. RESULTS: Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3-5), MI and mortality occurred in 195 patients (5.8%), 143 patients (4.3%) and 143 patients (4.3%), respectively. After adjustment, bleeding [hazard ratio = 5.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.03-8.53; P < 0.001] and MI [hazard ratio = 5.90; 95% CI, (3.00-11.65); P < 0.001) remained independently associated with the risk for 1-year mortality. The C-statistic (with 95% CI) of the model for bleeding, MI and mortality was, 0.755 (0.722-0.786), 0.752 (0.717-0.789) and 0.868 (0.837-0.896), respectively. The inclusion of bleeding [C-statistic: 0.892 (0.867-0.913); delta C-statistic 0.024 (-0.014 to 0.065); P = 0.200] or MI [C-statistic: 0.878 (0.851-0.903); delta C-statistic 0.011 (-0.030 to 0.053); P = 0.635] in the risk prediction models for mortality alongside baseline demographical and clinical variables did not improve prediction for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS treated with PCI, mortality is the most accurately predicted outcome. Bleeding and MI did not improve risk discrimination for mortality when added in the risk prediction models for mortality suggesting that these outcomes do not provide incremental prognostic information on top of baseline demographical and clinical data.

Access Route and Clinical Outcomes After Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Body mass index and efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) according to body mass index (BMI) remain unstudied. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with ACS according to BMI. METHODS: Patients (n=3987) were grouped into 3 categories: normal weight (BMI <25kg/m2; n=1084), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to <30kg/m2; n=1890), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30kg/m2; n=1013). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1 year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary safety endpoint was the 1 year incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 63 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 39 patients assigned to prasugrel in the normal weight group (11.7% vs 7.5%; HR, 1.62; 95%CI, 1.09-2.42; P=.018), 78 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 58 patients assigned to prasugrel in the overweight group (8.3% vs 6.2%; HR, 1.36; 95%CI, 0.97-1.91; P=.076), and 43 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 37 patients assigned to prasugrel in the obesity group (8.6% vs 7.3%; HR, 1.18; 95%CI, 0.76-1.84; P=.451). The 1-year incidence of bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with normal weight (6.5% vs 6.6%; P=.990), overweight (5.6% vs 5.0%; P=.566) or obesity (4.4% vs 2.8%; P=.219). There was no significant treatment arm-by-BMI interaction regarding the primary endpoint (Pint=.578) or secondary endpoint (Pint=.596). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, BMI did not significantly impact the treatment effect of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy or safety. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P<0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P<0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary (P for interaction=0.12) or secondary (P for interaction=0.80) end points. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.