Short- versus long-term duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a randomized multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy and the risk-benefit ratio for long-term dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting remain poorly defined. We evaluated the impact of up to 6 versus 24 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy in a broad all-comers patient population receiving a balanced proportion of Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 2013 patients to receive bare-metal, zotarolimus-eluting, paclitaxel-eluting, or everolimus-eluting stent implantation. At 30 days, patients in each stent group were randomly allocated to receive up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in addition to aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of death of any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. The cumulative risk of the primary outcome at 2 years was 10.1% with 24-month dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with 10.0% with 6-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.29; P=0.91). The individual risks of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or stent thrombosis did not differ between the study groups; however, there was a consistently greater risk of hemorrhage in the 24-month clopidogrel group according to all prespecified bleeding definitions, including the recently proposed Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. CONCLUSIONS: A regimen of 24 months of clopidogrel therapy in patients who had received a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a 6-month clopidogrel regimen in reducing the composite of death due to any cause, myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00611286.

Randomized comparison of 6- versus 24-month clopidogrel therapy after balancing anti-intimal hyperplasia stent potency in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Design and rationale for the PROlonging Dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia study (PRODIGY).

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting is debated because of the scarcity of randomized controlled trials and inconsistencies arising from registry data. Although prolonged clopidogrel therapy after bare metal stenting is regarded as an effective secondary prevention measure, the safety profile of drug-eluting stents itself has been questioned in patients not receiving ≥ 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy. HYPOTHESIS: Twenty-four months of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting reduces the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with 6 months of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: PRODIGY is an unblinded, multicenter, 4-by-2 randomized trial. All-comer patients with indication to coronary stenting are randomly treated-balancing randomization-with bare metal stent (no active late loss inhibition), Endeavor Sprint zotarolimus-eluting stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) (mild late loss inhibition), Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) (moderate late loss inhibition), or Xience V everolimus-eluting stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) (high late loss inhibition). At 30 days, patients in each stent group are randomly allocated to receive 24 or up to 6 months of clopidogrel therapy-primary end point randomization. With 1,700 individuals, this study will have >80% power to detect a 40% difference in the primary end point after sample size augmentation of 5% and a background event rate of 8%. SUMMARY: The PRODIGY trial aims to assess whether 24 months of clopidogrel therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes after coronary intervention in a broad all-comer patient population receiving a balanced mixture of stents with various anti-intimal hyperplasia potency.

Long-term effect of folic acid therapy in heart transplant recipients: follow-up analysis of a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Folic acid therapy reduces homocysteine plasma levels, which seem to influence occurrence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy, but its effect on medium- or long-term prognosis after heart transplantation is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed 7-year outcome of 51 recipients randomized to receive 15 mg/day of methyltertrahydrofolate for 1 year after heart transplantation or standard therapy alone (originally, for intravascular ultrasound study of short-term cardiac allograft vasculopathy progression); recipients were observed for a further 5 to 6 years. RESULTS: Overall, 13 deaths occurred (six oncologic, five cardiovascular, two infective). Estimated 7-year survival was better in recipients randomized to folate (88%+/-6% vs. 61%+/-9%, P=0.04). After adjusting for age, pretransplant coronary artery disease, and hyperhomocysteinemia, posttransplant folic acid therapy was associated with lower mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.97; P=0.036), apparently driven by reductions in both cancer-related and cardiovascular causes. Reduced mortality was marked in a high-risk subgroup comprising older recipients and patients transplanted because of coronary artery disease (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17-0.85) but not in the lower-risk subgroup (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.22-5.61). CONCLUSIONS: Although further studies are needed, it seems reasonable to suggest folate therapy to heart transplant recipients. It is possible that properties other than homocysteine reduction may provide antitumoral benefits.

Frequency of "Pocket" Hematoma in Patients Receiving Vitamin K Antagonist and Antiplatelet Therapy at the Time of Pacemaker or Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (from the POCKET Study).

In patients undergoing cardiac device implantation, anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy are associated with an increased risk of pocket hematoma. In case of vitamin K antagonist therapy, a strategy of continued warfarin with no heparin bridge showed a reduction of pocket hematoma. Evidence regarding antiplatelet therapy management is limited. This is a single-center observational study which reflects our systematic approach to the problem. In 2012, we proposed an improved management protocol for anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy (no-bridge protocol) based on individual thromboembolic risk stratification, noninterruption of oral anticoagulation, no bridge with heparin and elastic adherence compression bandage. The primary end point was the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma in the first 30 days after implantation. A total of 1,035 patients were enrolled, of whom 522 received the standard management and 513 the new protocol. The primary end point occurred in 34 patients of the standard management group and 8 patients of the no-bridge protocol group (6.5% vs 1.6%, p <0.001). Patients in the standard management group had a higher incidence of pocket infections (2.3% vs 0.6%, p = 0.02), lead dislodgements (4.8% vs 2.1%, p = 0.02), and thromboembolic events (1.3% vs 0.0%, p <0.01). On a multivariate analysis, heparin and coronary artery disease were independent predictors of pocket hematoma (relative risk [RR] 3.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.55 to 7.83 and RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.76, respectively), whereas the no-bridge protocol was associated with a reduction of pocket hematoma (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.76). New anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy management protocol was associated with a reduced incidence of clinically significant pocket hematomas, thromboembolic events, pocket infections, and lead dislodgements.

Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess device-specific outcomes after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS), zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stents (ZES-S), paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), or everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared second-generation drug-eluting stents with each other or with BMS. METHODS: We randomized 2,013 patients to BMS, ZES-S, PES, or EES implantation. At 30 days, each stent group received up to 6 or 24 months of clopidogrel therapy. The key efficacy endpoint was the 2-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including any death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization, whereas the cumulative rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) was the key safety endpoint. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 2 years was complete for 99.7% of patients. The MACE rate was lowest in EES (19.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.0 to 22.8), highest in BMS (32.1%; 95% CI: 28.1 to 36.3), and intermediate in PES (26.2%; 95% CI: 22.5 to 30.2) and ZES-S (27.8%; 95% CI: 24.1 to 31.9) groups (chi-square test = 18.9, p = 0.00029). The 2-year incidence of ST in the EES group (1%; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2) was similar to that in the ZES-S group (1.4%; 95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8), whereas it was lower compared with the PES (4.6%, 95% CI: 3.1 to 6.8) and BMS (3.6%; 95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6) groups (chi-square = 16.9; p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that cumulative MACE rate, encompassing both safety and efficacy endpoints, was lowest for EES, highest for BMS, and intermediate for PES and ZES-S groups. EES outperformed BMS also with respect to the safety endpoints with regard to definite or probable and definite, probable, or possible ST. (PROlonging Dual antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY [PRODIGY]; NCT00611286).

Boosting platelet inhibition in poor responder to aspirin and clopidogrel undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: role of tirofiban.

Nowadays, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and clopidogrel form the cornerstone in prevention of cardiovascular events and their clinical effectiveness has been well established. The thienopyridine clopidogrel is a prodrug that, after hepatic metabolization, strongly inhibits adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation. Aspirin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that exerts its anti-platelet action through the irreversible acetylation of platelet cyclooxygenase (COX)-1, blocking thromboxane A2 production. However, despite dual-antiplatelet therapy, some patients still develop recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events. Many studies have clearly showed that a marked variability exists in the responsiveness to aspirin and clopidogrel, being the poor responder patients at higher risk of short (peri-procedural) and long-term ischemic complications. In particular, these patients showed a major recurrence of myocardial infarction and, after stent implantation, of stent thrombosis. The mechanisms of aspirin and clopidogrel poor response are numerous and not fully elucidated, and are likely multifactorial (eg, genetic polymorphisms, elevated baseline platelet reactivity, drug interaction). How to improve the short- and long-term outcome of these patients is currently unknown. Recently published and ongoing clinical trials are evaluating different strategies for the acute and chronic treatments (eg, reload of clopidogrel, double clopidogrel maintenance dose, switching to prasugrel). In this paper, we reviewed all available evidence on aspirin and clopidogrel resistance and focused our attention on tirofiban, a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor that may be used to obtain a better platelet inhibition in poor responder patients during the acute phase and in particular during percutaneous coronary intervention.

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe with low doses of simvastatin in heart transplant recipients.

Although statins have proven efficacy in lowering lipids and improving survival in heart transplantation (HT) recipients, potential drug interactions may limit efficacy and reduce tolerability. This observational study explored the efficacy and tolerability of ezetimibe (10 mg/day) combined with simvastatin (10 or 20 mg/day) prescribed to HT recipients with intolerance to statins (n = 11) or inadequate lipid control despite high-dose statins (n = 14). Substantial reductions in lipid levels were apparent after 2 months (total cholesterol, -22%; low-density lipoproteins, -28%; triglycerides, -31%) and were maintained at 6 months. Reductions were significant in both subgroups of recipients; the vast majority (12 of 14, 85%) of recipients with a history of statins intolerance were able to tolerate ezetimibe plus low-dose simvastatin. This study provides suggestive evidence that treatment with ezetimibe plus low-dose simvastatin is well tolerated by HT recipients and may be effective for treatment of dyslipidemia in HT recipients with statins intolerance or resistance.