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.

Immature Platelet Fraction Predicts Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: the ISAR-REACT 5 Reticulated Platelet Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Immature or reticulated platelets are associated with impaired efficacy of antiplatelet drugs and adverse events in cardiovascular patients. Their role as a predictive biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is not fully understood. We aimed to prospectively evaluate reticulated platelets as a predictor of the primary end point of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Immature platelet fraction (IPF) was assessed within 48 hours after randomization. Patients were divided based on the IPF median values: the IPFhigh group included patients with IPF>median and the IPFlow group included patients with IPF≤median. Platelet aggregation was assessed using the Multiplate Analyzer and was correlated to IPF. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven patients were included in the study. IPF values in % (median [interquartile range]) within the first 48 hours did not differ between the two study groups: 3.6 (2.5-5.2)% in the prasugrel group and 3.6 (2.5-5.4)% in the ticagrelor group (P=0.882). The incidence of the primary end point was significantly higher in the IPFhigh (IPF>3.6%) group compared with the IPFlow (IPF≤3.6%) group: 13.0% versus 7.2% (HRadj, 1.74 [1.02-3.00]; P=0.044), independently from the assigned drug (Pint=0.159). No significant association between IPF and BARC 3 to 5 bleeding was observed. ADP-induced platelet aggregation correlated significantly with IPF in patients treated with prasugrel (r=0.22; P=0.005) while no correlation was detected in patients treated with ticagrelor (r=0.09; P=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Independently from drug treatment, IPF was associated with the primary end point and therefore is a promising biomarker for the prediction of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in acute coronary syndrome: an individual patient meta-analysis.

AIMS: Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). De-escalation of the potent P2Y12 inhibtor is an appealing concept to balance the ischaemic and bleeding risks after PCI. An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed to compare de-escalation versus standard DAPT in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database, were searched to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the de-escalation strategy with the standard DAPT after PCI in patients with ACS. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The co-primary endpoints of interest were the ischaemic composite endpoint (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events) and bleeding endpoint (any bleeding) at 1-year post-PCI. Four RCTs (the TROPICAL-ACS, POPular Genetics, HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, and TALOS-AMI trials) including 10 133 patients were analysed. The ischaemic endpoint was significantly lower in the patients assigned to the de-escalation strategy than in those assigned to the standard strategy (2.3% vs. 3.0%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.761, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.597-0.972, log rank P = 0.029). Bleeding was also significantly lower in the de-escalation strategy group (6.5% vs. 9.1%, HR 0.701, 95% CI 0.606-0.811, log rank P < 0.001). No significant intergroup differences were observed in terms of all-cause death and major bleeding events. Subgroup analyses revealed that compared to guided de-escalation, unguided de-escalation had a significantly larger impact on bleeding endpoint reduction (P for interaction = 0.007); no intergroup differences were observed for the ischaemic endpoints. CONCLUSION: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, DAPT-based de-escalation was associated with both decreased ischaemic and bleeding endpoints. Reduction in bleeding endpoints was more prominent for the unguided than the guided de-escalation strategy. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered in the PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021245477).

Acute, periprocedural and longterm antithrombotic therapy in older adults: 2022 Update by the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

The first international guidance on antithrombotic therapy in the elderly came from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis in 2015. This same group has updated its previous report on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs for older patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, or undergoing surgery or procedures typical of the elderly (transcatheter aortic valve implantation and left atrial appendage closure). The aim is to provide a succinct but comprehensive tool for readers to understand the bases of antithrombotic therapy in older patients, despite the complexities of comorbidities, comedications and uncertain ischaemic- vs. bleeding-risk balance. Fourteen updated consensus statements integrate recent trial data and other evidence, with a focus on high bleeding risk. Guideline recommendations, when present, are highlighted, as well as gaps in evidence. Key consensus points include efforts to improve medical adherence through deprescribing and polypill use; adoption of universal risk definitions for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke and cause-specific death; multiple bleeding-avoidance strategies, ranging from gastroprotection with aspirin use to selection of antithrombotic-drug composition, dosing and duration tailored to multiple variables (setting, history, overall risk, age, weight, renal function, comedications, procedures) that need special consideration when managing older adults.

Comparative effects of guided vs. potent P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96-1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603). KEY QUESTION: A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored. KEY FINDING: In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static 'one off' assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing 'best practice' when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

ADP-induced platelet reactivity and bleeding events in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

While previous reports showed ADP-induced platelet reactivity to be an independent predictor of bleeding after PCI in stable patients, this has never been investigated in patients with cardiogenic shock. The association of bleeding events with respect to ADP-induced platelet aggregation was investigated in patients undergoing primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock and with available on-treatment ADP-induced platelet aggregation measurements. Out of 233 patients, 74 suffered from a severe BARC3 or higher bleed. ADP-induced platelet aggregation was significantly lower in patients with BARC≥3 bleedings (p < .001). Multivariate analysis identified on-treatment ADP-induced platelet aggregation as an independent risk factor for bleeding (HR = 0.968 per AU). An optimal cutoff value of <12 AU for ADP-induced platelet aggregation to predict BARC≥3 bleedings was identified via ROC analysis. Moreover, the use of VA-ECMO (HR 1.972) or coaxial left ventricular pump (HR 2.593), first lactate (HR 1.093 per mmol/l) and thrombocyte count (HR 0.994 per G/l) were independent predictors of BARC≥3 bleedings. In conclusion, lower on-treatment ADP-induced platelet aggregation was independently associated with severe bleeding events in patients with AMI-CS. The value of platelet function testing for bleeding risk prediction and guidance of anti-thrombotic treatment in cardiogenic shock warrants further investigation.

Antithrombotic therapies in aortic and peripheral arterial diseases in 2021: a consensus document from the ESC working group on aorta and peripheral vascular diseases, the ESC working group on thrombosis, and the ESC working group on cardiovascular pharmacotherapy.

The aim of this collaborative document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with aortic and/or peripheral arterial diseases. Antithrombotic therapy is a pillar of optimal medical treatment for these patients at very high cardiovascular risk. While the number of trials on antithrombotic therapies in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases is substantially smaller than for those with coronary artery disease, recent evidence deserves to be incorporated into clinical practice. In the absence of specific indications for chronic oral anticoagulation due to concomitant cardiovascular disease, a single antiplatelet agent is the basis for long-term antithrombotic treatment in patients with aortic or peripheral arterial diseases. Its association with another antiplatelet agent or low-dose anticoagulants will be discussed, based on patient's ischaemic and bleeding risk as well therapeutic paths (e.g. endovascular therapy). This consensus document aims to provide a guidance for antithrombotic therapy according to arterial disease localizations and clinical presentation. However, it cannot substitute multidisciplinary team discussions, which are particularly important in patients with uncertain ischaemic/bleeding balance. Importantly, since this balance evolves over time in an individual patient, a regular reassessment of the antithrombotic therapy is of paramount importance.

Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a consensus document of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), in collaboration with the ESC Council on Valvular Heart Disease.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is effective in older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, while the indication has recently broadened to younger patients at lower risk. Although thromboembolic and bleeding complications after TAVI have decreased over time, such adverse events are still common. The recommendations of the latest 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease on antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing TAVI are mostly based on expert opinion. Based on recent studies and randomized controlled trials, this viewpoint document provides updated therapeutic insights in antithrombotic treatment during and after TAVI.

European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. Part II - Decompression sickness, migraine, arterial deoxygenation syndromes and select high-risk clinical conditions.

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions but to date only one official position paper related to left circulation thromboembolism has been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with the involvement of eight European scientific societies, reviews the available evidence and proposes a rationale for decision making for other PFO-related clinical conditions. In order to guarantee a strict evidence-based process, we used a modified grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based on limited and observational or low-certainty randomised data, a number of position statements were made to frame PFO management in different clinical settings, along with suggestions for new research avenues. This interdisciplinary position paper, recognising the low or very low certainty of existing evidence, provides the first approach to several PFO-related clinical scenarios beyond left circulation thromboembolism and strongly stresses the need for fresh high-quality evidence on these topics.

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.

Prevention of stroke in patients with chronic coronary syndromes or peripheral arterial disease.

Stroke is a common and devastating condition caused by atherothrombosis, thromboembolism, or haemorrhage. Patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at increased risk of stroke because of shared pathophysiological mechanisms and risk-factor profiles. A range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies can help to reduce stroke risk in these groups. Antithrombotic therapy reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including ischaemic stroke, but increases the incidence of haemorrhagic stroke. Nevertheless, the net clinical benefits mean antithrombotic therapy is recommended in those with CCS or symptomatic PAD. Whilst single antiplatelet therapy is recommended as chronic treatment, dual antiplatelet therapy should be considered for those with CCS with prior myocardial infarction at high ischaemic but low bleeding risk. Similarly, dual antithrombotic therapy with aspirin and very-low-dose rivaroxaban is an alternative in CCS, as well as in symptomatic PAD. Full-dose anticoagulation should always be considered in those with CCS/PAD and atrial fibrillation. Unless ischaemic risk is particularly high, antiplatelet therapy should not generally be added to full-dose anticoagulation. Optimization of blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein levels, glycaemic control, and lifestyle characteristics may also reduce stroke risk. Overall, a multifaceted approach is essential to best prevent stroke in patients with CCS/PAD.

European position paper on the management of patients with patent foramen ovale. General approach and left circulation thromboembolism.

The presence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of medical conditions; however, the subject remains controversial and no official statements have been published. This interdisciplinary paper, prepared with involvement of eight European scientific societies, aims to review the available trial evidence and to define the principles needed to guide decision making in patients with PFO. In order to guarantee a strict process, position statements were developed with the use of a modified grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A critical qualitative and quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk/benefit ratio. The level of evidence and the strength of the position statements of particular management options were weighed and graded according to predefined scales. Despite being based often on limited and non-randomised data, while waiting for more conclusive evidence, it was possible to conclude on a number of position statements regarding a rational general approach to PFO management and to specific considerations regarding left circulation thromboembolism. For some therapeutic aspects, it was possible to express stricter position statements based on randomised trials. This position paper provides the first largely shared, interdisciplinary approach for a rational PFO management based on the best available evidence.

Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel: a pre-specified exploratory analysis from the TROPICAL-ACS trial.

AIMS: The value of platelet function testing (PFT) in predicting clinical outcomes and guiding P2Y12-inhibitor treatment is uncertain. In a pre-specified sub-study of the TROPICAL-ACS trial, we assessed ischaemic and bleeding risks according to high platelet reactivity (HPR) and low platelet reactivity (LPR) to ADP in patients receiving uniform prasugrel vs. PFT-guided clopidogrel or prasugrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Acute coronary syndrome patients with PFT done 14 days after hospital discharge were included with prior randomization to uniform prasugrel for 12 months (control group, no treatment modification) vs. early de-escalation from prasugrel to clopidogrel and PFT-guided maintenance treatment (HPR: switch-back to prasugrel, non-HPR: clopidogrel). The composite ischaemic endpoint included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, while key safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2-5 bleeding, from PFT until 12 months. We identified 2527 patients with PFT results available: 1266 were randomized to the guided and 1261 to the control group. Before treatment adjustment, HPR was more prevalent in the guided group (40% vs. 15%), while LPR was more common in control patients (27% vs. 11%). Compared to control patients without HPR on prasugrel (n = 1073), similar outcomes were observed in guided patients kept on clopidogrel [n = 755, hazard ratio (HR): 1.06 (0.57-1.95), P = 0.86] and also in patients with HPR on clopidogrel switched to prasugrel [n = 511, HR: 0.96 (0.47-1.96), P = 0.91]. In contrast, HPR on prasugrel was associated with a higher risk for ischaemic events in control patients [n = 188, HR: 2.16 (1.01-4.65), P = 0.049]. Low platelet reactivity was an independent predictor of bleeding [HR: 1.74 (1.18-2.56), P = 0.005], without interaction (Pint = 0.76) between study groups. CONCLUSION: Based on this substudy of a randomized trial, selecting prasugrel or clopidogrel based on PFT resulted in similar ischaemic outcomes as uniform prasugrel therapy without HPR. Although infrequent, HPR on prasugrel was associated with increased risk of ischaemic events. Low platelet reactivity was a strong and independent predictor of bleeding both on prasugrel and clopidogrel.

P2Y12-ADP Receptor Blockade in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Because of its high prevalence, chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains a major health hazard throughout the world. Patients with CKD have a high prevalence and incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite decades of improved care, their higher risk profile persists and cardiovascular diseases remain their leading cause of death. Along with the reduction of glomerular filtration rate, several physiological processes are impacted and participate in the pathophysiology of ischemic and bleeding events. CKD is associated with an accelerated and severe course of atherothrombotic disease, and this relates to a modified vascular milieu with alterations on the level of the coagulation cascade and platelet aggregation. In addition, pharmacokinetics of several drugs, in particular antithrombotics, are altered and differ from that of non-CKD patients. Patients with CKD therefore represent a challenging population for both physicians and researchers. In addition to these perturbations of physiological processes, CKD patients face 2 major issues. First, there is a clear gap in scientific research as they are commonly underrepresented or excluded from major clinical trials. This is particularly true regarding antithrombotic treatment during ACS. Second, there is a gap in offering evidence-based treatment for these patients including state-of-the art options for revascularization and modern antiplatelet treatment, both of which are commonly underused. During the last decade, new potent oral P2Y12-ADP receptor antagonists, prasugrel and ticagrelor, which are more potent antiplatelet agents compared with clopidogrel, were introduced for ACS treatment. However, despite the fact that CKD patients represent a large proportion of those experiencing an ACS and are considered at high risk, there is a lack of dedicated trials and we are left with subgroup analysis of large randomized clinical trials were stage 4 and dialysis patients were rare. In the present review we summarize the mechanisms involved in the high ischemic and bleeding risk of CKD patients and the risk-benefit ratio of potent antiplatelet drugs during ACS.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may occur for a variety of reasons, including side effects (bleeding and non-bleeding) and costs. This study sought to assess the prevalence of de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel and the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes following de-escalation. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and real-world studies in ACS patients treated with ticagrelor. Real-world data on the prevalence of de-escalation during hospitalization or at discharge, after hospital discharge, and during the whole study period were included for meta-analysis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding events occurring after de-escalation were also assessed. A total of 12 studies were eligible for meta-analysis of the prevalence of de-escalation. De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel therapy occurred with a mean prevalence of 19.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-28.4%]. De-escalation occurred more frequently in-hospital or at discharge than after hospital discharge (23.7% vs. 15.8%). For assessment of clinical outcomes, a total of six studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean rate of MACE for patients with de-escalation was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%) and the rate of major bleeding events was 1.3% (95% CI 0.4-4.5%). In conclusion, de-escalation commonly occurs in real-world practice. Although rates of major cardiovascular and bleeding events in this analysis were generally low, the profile of patients suitable for de-escalation, the impact of de-escalation on adverse clinical outcomes and how this is affected by the timing after index ACS warrants further large-scale investigation.

Guided de-escalation of DAPT in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS implantation: a post-hoc analysis from the randomized TROPICAL-ACS trial.

To investigate the safety and efficacy of an early platelet function testing (PFT)-guided de-escalation of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS). Early DAPT de-escalation is a new non-inferior alternative to 12-months DAPT in patients with biomarker positive ACS treated with stent implantation. In this post-hoc analysis of the TROPICAL-ACS trial, which randomized 2610 ACS patients to a PFT-guided DAPT de-escalation (switch from prasugrel to clopidogrel) or to control group (uniform prasugrel), we compared clinical outcomes of patients (n = 151) who received a BVS during the index PCI. The frequency of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or BARC ≥ 2 bleeding) was 8.8% (n = 6) in the de-escalation group vs. 12.0% (n = 10) in the control group (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.26-1.98, p = 0.52) at 12 months. One early definite stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in the control group (day 19) and 1 possible ST (sudden cardiovascular death) in the de-escalation group (day 86), both despite prasugrel treatment and in a background of high on-treatment platelet reactivity assessed at day 14 after randomization (ADP-induced platelet aggregation values of 108 U and 59 U, respectively). A PFT-guided DAPT de-escalation strategy could potentially be a safe and effective strategy in ACS patients with BVS implantation but the level of platelet inhibition may be of particular importance. This hypothesis-generating post-hoc analysis requires verification in larger studies with upcoming BVS platforms.

Age and outcomes following guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the randomized TROPICAL-ACS trial.

Aims: Guided de-escalation of P2Y12-inhibitor treatment was recently identified as an effective alternative treatment strategy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Safety and efficacy of this strategy may differ in relation to patient's age. This pre-specified analysis of the TROPICAL-ACS trial aimed to assess the impact of age on clinical outcomes following guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in ACS patients. Methods and results: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to either standard treatment with prasugrel for 12 months (control group) or to a guided de-escalation regimen (1 week prasugrel followed by 1 week clopidogrel and platelet function testing guided maintenance therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel from day 14 after hospital discharge; guided de-escalation group). We used Cox regression models to assess the associations of age on clinical endpoints and interactions. In younger patients (age ≤70, n = 2240), the 1 year incidence of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding ≥ grade 2 according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria) was significantly lower in guided de-escalation vs. control group [5.9% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.96; P = 0.03, number needed to treat = 42]. In elderly patients (age >70, n = 370), the absolute risk of events was higher without significant differences between guided de-escalation vs. control group (15.5% vs. 13.6%; HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.69-2.01; P = 0.56). When the impact of age, as a continuous variable, was analysed on outcomes after guided de-escalation vs. control treatment, an increasing relative risk reduction was observed in the primary endpoint by decreasing age (Pint = 0.02), due to significant reductions in bleeding. Conclusion: Treatment effects of guided de-escalation for P2Y12 inhibitors depend on patient's age with younger patients deriving a significant net clinical benefit. Although the safety and efficacy of guided de-escalation in the elderly was similar to uniform prasugrel therapy, this should be further investigated due to the limited sample size of this group.