Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme. METHODS: MATRIX was a programme of three nested, randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome in 78 hospitals in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were simultaneously randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and to bivalirudin, with or without post-percutaneous coronary intervention infusion or unfractionated heparin (one-step inclusion). Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and, only if deemed eligible to percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography (two-step inclusion), entered the antithrombin type and treatment duration programmes. Randomisation sequences were computer generated, blocked, and stratified by intended new or current use of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs ticagrelor or prasugrel), and acute coronary syndrome type (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, troponin-positive, or troponin-negative non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome). Bivalirudin was given as a bolus of 0·75 mg/kg, followed immediately by an infusion of 1·75 mg/kg per h until completion of percutaneous coronary intervention. Heparin was given at 70-100 units per kg in patients not receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and at 50-70 units per kg in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Clinical follow-up was done at 30 days and 1 year. Co-primary outcomes for MATRIX access and MATRIX antithrombin type were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 30 days; and net adverse clinical events, defined as the composite of non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding, or major adverse cardiovascular events up to 30 days. The primary outcome for MATRIX treatment duration was the composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events up to 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS: Between Oct 11, 2011, and Nov 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 8404 patients to receive radial (4197 patients) or femoral (4207 patients) access. Of these 8404 patients, 7213 were included in the MATRIX antithrombin type study and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin (3610 patients) or heparin (3603 patients). Patients assigned to bivalirudin were included in the MATRIX treatment duration study, and were randomly assigned to post-procedure infusion (1799 patients) or no post-procedure infusion (1811 patients). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between patients assigned to radial access compared with those assigned to femoral access (14·2% vs 15·7%; rate ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·80-1·00; p=0·0526), but net adverse clinical events were fewer with radial than with femoral access (15·2% vs 17·2%; 0·87, 0·78-0·97; p=0·0128). Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular (15·8% vs 16·8%; 0·94, 0·83-1·05; p=0·28) or net adverse clinical events (17·0% vs 18·4%; 0·91, 0·81-1·02; p=0·10). The composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events did not differ with or without post-procedure bivalirudin infusion (17·4% vs 17·4%; 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·90). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, radial access was associated with lower rates of net adverse clinical events compared with femoral access, but not major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Bivalirudin with or without post-procedure infusion was not associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events. Radial access should become the default approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management. FUNDING: Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology, The Medicines Company, Terumo, amd Canada Research Chairs Programme.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS: The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation.

Aims: To assess whether radial compared with femoral access is associated with consistent outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Methods and results: In the Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) programme patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, stratified by STEMI (2001 radial, 2009 femoral) and NSTE-ACS (2196 radial, 2198 femoral). The 30-day co-primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACE or major bleeding In the overall study population, radial access reduced the NACE but not MACE endpoint at the prespecified 0.025 alpha. MACE occurred in 121 (6.1%) STEMI patients with radial access vs. 126 (6.3%) patients with femoral access [rate ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75-1.24; P = 0.76] and in 248 (11.3%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access vs. 303 (13.9%) with femoral access (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.96; P = 0.016) (Pint = 0.25). NACE occurred in 142 (7.2%) STEMI patients with radial access and in 165 (8.3%) patients with femoral access (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.68-1.08; P = 0.18) and in 268 (12.2%) NSTE-ACS patients with radial access compared with 321 (14.7%) with femoral access (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69-0.97; P = 0.023) (Pint = 0.76). All-cause mortality and access site-actionable bleeding favoured radial access irrespective of ACS type (Pint = 0.11 and Pint = 0.36, respectively). Conclusion: Radial as compared with femoral access provided consistent benefit across the whole spectrum of patients with ACS, without evidence that type of presenting syndrome affected the results of the random access allocation.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING: The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Randomized comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint versus bare-metal stent implantation in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates: rationale, design, and characterization of the patient population for the Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent in uncertain DES candidates study.

BACKGROUND: The use of drug-eluting stent (DES) instead of bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients at high stent thrombosis or bleeding risk as well as in those at low restenosis risk (ie, uncertain DES candidates) remains a matter of debate. Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) (Santa Rosa, CA) is a hydrophilic polymer-based second-generation device with unique drug fast-release profile, which may allow for a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration without safety concerns. HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective is to assess whether E-ZES implantation followed by a shorter than currently recommended course of DAPT will decrease the incidence of 12-month major adverse cardiovascular events as compared with BMS in undefined DES recipients. Actual duration of DAPT regimen will be dictated by patients' characteristics and not by stent type and, as such, can be as short as 30 days after intervention in both stent groups. STUDY DESIGN: The ZEUS study is an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 clinical sites in Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, and Hungary. With 1,600 individuals, this study will have 85% power to detect a 33% difference in the primary end point consisting of the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. SUMMARY: The ZEUS trial aims to assess whether the use of E-ZES, followed by a DAPT duration regimen based on patients' characteristics and not by stent type, is superior to conventional BMS implantation in undefined DES recipients who qualify for the presence of high thrombosis, bleeding, or low restenosis risk criteria.

A large, prospective, multicentre study of left main PCI using a latest-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent: the ROLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Data on left main (LM) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) have mostly been obtained in studies using drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms without dedicated large-vessel devices and with limited expansion capability. AIMS: Our study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of LM PCI with the latest-generation Resolute Onyx DES. METHODS: ROLEX (Revascularization Of LEft main with resolute onyX) is a prospective, multicentre study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03316833) enrolling patients with unprotected LM coronary artery disease and a SYNTAX score <33 undergoing PCI with the Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent, that includes dedicated extra-large vessel platforms. The primary endpoint (EP) was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (ID-TLR), at 1 year. All events were adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee. An independent core lab analysed all procedural angiograms. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients (mean age 71.8 years, SYNTAX score 24.5±7.2, acute coronary syndrome in 53%) were enrolled in 26 centres. Of these, 77% of subjects underwent PCI with a single-stent and 23% with a 2-stent technique (8% double kissing [DK] crush, 6% culotte, 9% T/T and small protrusion [TAP] stenting). Intravascular imaging guidance was used in 45% (42% intravascular ultrasound [IVUS], 3% optical coherence tomography [OCT]). At 1 year, the primary EP incidence was 5.1% (cardiac death 2.7%, TVMI 2.7%, ID-TLR 2.0%). The definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was 1.1%. In a prespecified adjusted subanalysis, the primary EP incidence was significantly lower in patients undergoing IVUS/OCT-guided versus angio-guided PCI (2.0 vs 7.6%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.58; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicentre, prospective registry, LM PCI with the Resolute Onyx DES showed good safety and efficacy at 1 year, particularly when guided by intracoronary imaging.

Coronary calcification in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the MATRIX trial.

AIMS: The role of coronary calcification on clinical outcomes among different revascularization strategies in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) has been rarely investigated. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the role of coronary calcification, detected by coronary angiography, in the whole spectrum of patients presenting with acute ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study was a post hoc analysis of the MATRIX programme. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke up to 365 days. Among the 8404 patients randomized in the MATRIX trial, data about coronary calcification were available in 7446 (88.6%) and therefore were included in this post hoc analysis. Overall, 875 patients (11.7%) presented with severe coronary calcification, while 6571 patients (88.3%) did not present severe coronary calcification on coronary angiography. Fewer patients with severe coronary calcification underwent percutaneous coronary intervention whereas coronary artery bypass grafting or medical therapy-only was more frequent compared with patients without severe calcification. At 1-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 237 (27.1%) patients with severe calcified coronary lesions and 985 (15%) patients without severe coronary calcified lesions [hazard ratio (HR) 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-2.20, P < 0.001]. All-cause mortality was 8.6% in patients presenting with and 3.7% in those without severe coronary calcification (HR 2.38, 1.84-3.09, P < 0.001). Patients with severe coronary calcification incurred higher rate of MI (20.1% vs. 11.5%, HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.1, P < 0.001) and similar rate of stroke (0.8% vs. 0.6%, HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.61-3.02, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Patients with ACS and severe coronary calcification, as compared to those without, are associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the management strategy.

Sex-specific benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent on long-term outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study trial.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the relation between female sex and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) use on long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND: There are no data on sex-specific differences in long-term benefit of SES use compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) use among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the MULTISTRATEGY trial. Hazard ratios (HRs) of events with 95% CI for sex and stent type were computed using Cox proportional regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 744 patients, 64 years old (55-73 years old), 179 (24.1%) women, were enrolled. After a follow-up of 1,080 days, SES use was associated with a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events, that is, the composite of all-cause death, reinfarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) (13.9% vs 23.6%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94, P = .026) and of TVR (6.1% vs 15.1%, adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63, P < .001) in men. Conversely, SES use was not associated to a better outcome among women (major adverse cardiovascular events 21.9% in SES vs 18.2% in the BMS group, adjusted HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53-3.02, P = .59; TVR 6.6% vs 9.1%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.21, P = .46). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the clinical benefit of SES use, over BMS, at 3-year follow-up was restricted to men and was not observed among women.

Importance and limits of pre-hospital electrocardiogram in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to present data on the effects of pre-hospital electrocardiogram (PH-ECG) on the outcome of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCI) included in a registry undertaken in the Italian region of Lombardy. Pre-hospital 12-lead electrocardiogram is recommended by current guidelines in order to achieve faster times to reperfusion in patients with STEMI. METHODS: The registry includes 3901 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI over an 18-month period. RESULTS: Mean age was 63 ± 12 years. Admission through the emergency medical system (EMS) occurred in 1603 patients (40%): they were older, more frequently had previous MI, TIMI flow = 0 at entry and were more frequently in Killip class >1 than patients who were not admitted through the EMS. Among the patients admitted through the EMS, PH-ECG was obtained in 475 patients (12%). These patients had less frequently an anterior MI, but more frequently had absence of TIMI flow at entry than patients whose ECG was not teletransmitted. Moreover, they had a significantly shorter first medical contact-to-balloon time and a trend toward a lower 30-day death rate (5.3% vs 7.9 %, p = 0.06). However, only patients in Killip class 2-3 had a significantly lower mortality when the diagnostic ECG was transmitted, whereas no difference was found in Killip class 1 or Killip class 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this registry, PH-ECG significantly decreased first medical contact-to-balloon time. Attempts to achieve faster reperfusion times should be undertaken, as this may result in improved outcome, particularly in patients with mild to moderate symptoms of heart failure.

Intensifying platelet inhibition with tirofiban in poor responders to aspirin, clopidogrel, or both agents undergoing elective coronary intervention: results from the double-blind, prospective, randomized Tailoring Treatment with Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel study.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P=0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P=0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

A rare but serious complication of ticagrelor therapy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is a widely used P2Y12 inhibitor and represents a fundamental therapeutic agent in acute coronary syndrome treatment and selected post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cases. Dyspnoea and bradycardia are the most common side effects but the latter has been reported to be of trivial clinical significance. CASE SUMMARY: A 51-year-old gentleman underwent PCI to left anterior descending and obtuse marginal for unstable angina receiving a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg). During hospital stay, whilst on telemetry monitoring, a 16 s long, symptomatic, asystolic ventricular standstill was recorded prompting ticagrelor interruption and a switch to prasugrel. DISCUSSION: Despite ventricular pauses have been reported in dedicated analyses of Phase III trials, no apparent clinical consequences were documented. However, several reports have shown that significant brady-arrhythmic events might be linked to ticagrelor administration presenting both as sino-atrial and atrio-ventricular conduction disturbances. We report a case of asystole occurring 36 h after the administration of a loading dose.

Antiplatelet Therapy with Cangrelor in Patients Undergoing Surgery after Coronary Stent Implantation: A Real-World Bridging Protocol Experience.

Objective The aim of the study is to describe the real-world use of the P2Y 12 inhibitor cangrelor as a bridging strategy in patients at high thrombotic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and referred to surgery requiring perioperative withdrawal of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Materials and Methods We collected data from nine Italian centers on patients with previous PCI who were still on DAPT and undergoing nondeferrable surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation. A perioperative standardized bridging protocol with cangrelor was used. Results Between December 2017 and April 2019, 24 patients (mean age 72 years; male 79%) were enrolled. All patients were at high thrombotic risk after PCI and required nondeferrable intermediate to high bleeding risk surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation (4.6 ± 1.7 days). Cangrelor infusion was started at a bridging dose (0.75 µg/kg/min) 3 days before planned surgery and was discontinued 6.6 ± 1.5 hours prior to surgical incision. In 55% of patients, cangrelor was resumed at 9 ± 6 hours following surgery for a mean of 39 ± 38 hours. One cardiac death was reported after 3 hours of cangrelor discontinuation prior to surgery. No ischemic outcomes occurred after surgery and up to 30-days follow-up. The mean hemoglobin drop was <2 g/dL; nine patients received blood transfusions consistent with the type of surgery, but no life-threatening or fatal bleeding occurred. Conclusion Perioperative bridging therapy with cangrelor is a feasible approach for stented patients at high thrombotic risk and referred to surgery requiring DAPT discontinuation. Larger studies are warranted to support the safety of this strategy.

Downstream or upstream administration of P2Y12 receptor blockers in non-ST elevated acute coronary syndromes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing to administer a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients presenting with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome remains a topic of debate. Pretreatment with ticagrelor before coronary anatomy is known as a widely adopted strategy. However, there is poor evidence on how this compares with administration of a P2Y12 inhibitor after defining coronary anatomy (i.e., downstream administration). Moreover, there are limited head-to-head comparisons of the two P2Y12 inhibitors-ticagrelor and prasugrel-currently recommended by the guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: DUBIUS is a phase 4, multicenter, parallel-group, double randomized study conducted in NSTE-ACS patients designed to compare a pretreatment strategy (including only ticagrelor) versus a downstream strategy (including prasugrel or ticagrelor) and to compare downstream prasugrel with downstream ticagrelor. A total of 2520 patients will be randomly assigned to pretreatment with ticagrelor or to no pretreatment. The PCI group of the downstream arm will be further randomized to receive prasugrel or ticagrelor. The two primary hypotheses are that the downstream strategy is superior to the upstream strategy and that downstream ticagrelor is non-inferior to downstream prasugrel, both measured by the incidence of a composite efficacy and safety endpoint of death from vascular causes, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3, 4, and 5 bleedings. CONCLUSIONS: The DUBIUS study will provide important evidence related to the benefits and risks of pretreatment with ticagrelor compared with a strategy of no pretreatment. Moreover, the clinical impact of using downstream ticagrelor compared with downstream prasugrel will be assessed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618837 . Registered on 1 December 2015.

Timing of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Administration in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Although oral P2Y12 inhibitors are key in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, the optimal timing of their administration is not well defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare downstream and upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitors administration strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive treatment. METHODS: We performed a randomized, adaptive, open-label, multicenter clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive pre-treatment with ticagrelor before angiography (upstream group) or no pre-treatment (downstream group). Patients in the downstream group undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were further randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary hypothesis was the superiority of the downstream versus the upstream strategy on the combination of efficacy and safety events (net clinical benefit). RESULTS: We randomized 1,449 patients to downstream or upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration. A pre-specified stopping rule for futility at interim analysis led the trial to be stopped. The rate of the primary endpoint, a composite of death due to vascular causes; nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3, 4, and 5 bleeding through day 30, did not differ significantly between the downstream and upstream groups (percent absolute risk reduction: -0.46; 95% repeated confidence interval: -2.90 to 1.90). These results were confirmed among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (72% of population) and regardless of the timing of coronary angiography (within or after 24 h from enrollment). CONCLUSIONS: Downstream and upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration strategies were associated with low incidence of ischemic and bleeding events and minimal numeric difference of event rates between treatment groups. These findings led to premature interruption of the trial and suggest the unlikelihood of enhanced efficacy of 1 strategy over the other. (Downstream Versus Upstream Strategy for the Administration of P2Y12 Receptor Blockers In Non-ST Elevated Acute Coronary Syndromes With Initial Invasive Indication [DUBIUS]; NCT02618837).

Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: early and medium-term outcome.

BACKGROUND: The role of emergency reperfusion therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has not been clearly established yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes of STEMI patients surviving OHCA and undergoing emergency angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) within an established regional network. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on 2,617 consecutive patients with STEMI treated with emergency PCI in 2005; in-hospital and 6-month outcomes of 99 patients who had experienced OHCA were compared with those of 2,518 patients without OHCA. The OHCA patients also underwent a cerebral performance evaluation after 12 months. RESULTS: OHCA patients were at higher clinical risk at presentation (cardiogenic shock 26% vs 5%, P < .0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was successful in 80% of the OHCA and 89% of the non-OHCA patients (P = NS). In-hospital mortality rates were 22% and 3%, respectively (P < .0001). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality among OHCA patients were longer delay between the call to the emergency medical system and the start of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, P = .03), nonshockable initial rhythms (OR 10.5, P = .002), cardiogenic shock (OR 3.05, P = .035), and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 on admission (OR 2.9, P = .032). The 6-month composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization among OHCA patients surviving the acute phase was comparable to that of non-OHCA patients (16% vs 13.9%, P = NS), and 87% of them showed a favorable neurologic recovery after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Resuscitated OHCA patients undergoing emergency PCI for STEMI have worse clinical presentation and higher in-hospital mortality compared to those without OHCA. However, subsequent cardiac events are similar, and neurologic recovery is more favorable than reported in most previous series.

An Uncommon Case of Spontaneous Hemopericardium in a Patient Treated with Rivaroxaban.

We describe a case of an 88-year-old woman with a severe bluntly ematic pericardial effusion. Radiological and laboratory examinations excluded all the most common causes of hemopericardium, and the diagnosis of spontaneous hemopericardium associated with the treatment with rivaroxaban was made. This is the first case report describing a hemopericardium in a patient treated with rivaroxaban who did not take other herbal products or drugs that may significantly increase rivaroxaban blood levels. This report emphasizes the need for the careful use of new oral anticoagulants, and the importance of taking in mind uncommon side effects. Spontaneous hemopericardium should be considered in these patients.

Impact of angiographic coronary artery disease complexity on ischemic and bleeding risks and on the comparative effectiveness of zotarolimus-eluting vs. bare-metal stents in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates.

BACKGROUND: The impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) extension/complexity on outcomes and on the comparative benefits/risks of zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) remains unclear in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis or at low restenosis risk. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the ZEUS trial. The impact of coronary anatomic complexity measured by the SYNTAX score on the differences in outcomes following ZES and BMS was assessed at 1 year. RESULTS: The mean SYNTAX score was 16.3 ±â€¯13.1 with a median of 12 (IQR: 7 to 22). We stratified patients according to SYNTAX tertiles (0-8: n = 563; >8-19 n = 532; >19: n = 511), and observed that the higher the score, the correspondingly higher was the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and other ischemic events, but not bleeding after adjustment. The superior efficacy of ZES versus BMS for MACE was consistent across SYNTAX tertiles (tertile 1: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44-1.13; tertile 2: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46-1.09; tertile 3: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61-1.10) without significant heterogeneity (p for trend = 0.55). This between-groups difference mainly reflected a reduction in MI and TVR without effect on mortality. There was no significant interaction between the SYNTAX score and allocated stent type with respect to ischemic and bleeding endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The SYNTAX score was predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events but not bleeding and ZES provided superior efficacy and safety than BMS across the whole spectrum of CAD complexity. SYNTAX score may be routinely used for the assessment of the ischemic risk (but not bleeding) after PCI and should not guide the decision-making for DES versus BMS in patients undergoing PCI.

Comparison of angioplasty with infusion of tirofiban or abciximab and with implantation of sirolimus-eluting or uncoated stents for acute myocardial infarction: the MULTISTRATEGY randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. INTERVENTIONS: High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. RESULTS: ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

Bivalirudin or Heparin in Patients Undergoing Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site-related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Two-by-two factorial comparison of high-bolus-dose tirofiban followed by standard infusion versus abciximab and sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction: design and rationale for the MULTI-STRATEGY trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment standards for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention support early infusion of abciximab, followed by bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. Whether the use of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) would result in a further improvement of clinical outcomes remains to be proven. Similarly, whether tirofiban administered at high-bolus dose (HBD) followed by standard infusion is a valuable alternative to abciximab in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre evaluation of single high-bolus dose tirofiban versus abciximab and sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (MULTI-STRATEGY) is a phase III, open-label, multinational investigator-driven clinical trial evaluating, with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the safety/efficacy profile of 4 interventional strategies of reperfusion: tirofiban given at HBD (bolus of 25 microg/kg over 3 minutes), followed by an infusion of 0.15 microg/kg per minute for 18 to 24 hours versus abciximab and SES, as compared to BMS implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The coprimary objectives are (i) the evaluation of the effect of SES versus BMS on the incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 8 months of the index procedure and (ii) the degree of ST-segment resolution obtained after the mechanical intervention for the comparison of HBD tirofiban versus abciximab. The protocol mandates clinical follow-up for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: MULTI-STRATEGY will evaluate the role of SES and HBD tirofiban versus BMS and abciximab in the acute management of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.