Remote intensive management to improve antiplatelet adherence in acute myocardial infarction: a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled IMMACULATE trial.

This study aim to investigate if remote intensive coaching for the first 6 months post-AMI will improve adherence to the twice-a-day antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor. Between July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019, AMI patients were randomly assigned to remote intensive management (RIM) or standard care (SC). RIM participants underwent 6 months of weekly then two-weekly consultations to review medication side effects and medication adherence coaching by a centralized nurse practitioner team, whereas SC participants received usual cardiologist face-to-face consultations. Adherence to ticagrelor were determined using pill counting and serial platelet reactivity measurements for 12 months. A total of 149 (49.5%) of participants were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. Adherence to ticagrelor was similar between RIM and SC group at 1 month (94.4 ± 0.7% vs. 93.6±14.7%, p = 0.537), 6 months (91.0±14.6% vs. 90.6±14.8%, p = 0.832) and 12 months (87.4±17.0% vs. 89.8±12.5%, p = 0.688). There was also no significant difference in platelet reactivity between the RIM and SC groups at 1 month (251AU*min [212-328] vs. 267AU*min [208-351], p = 0.399), 6 months (239AU*min [165-308] vs. 235AU*min [171-346], p = 0.610) and 12 months (249AU*min [177-432] vs. 259AU*min [182-360], p = 0.678). Sensitivity analysis did not demonstrate any association of ticagrelor adherence with bleeding events and major adverse cardiovascular events. RIM, comprising 6 months of intensive coaching by nurse practitioners, did not improve adherence to the twice-a-day medication ticagrelor compared with SC among patients with AMI. A gradual decline in ticagrelor adherence over 12 months was observed despite 6 months of intensive coaching.

Remote Postdischarge Treatment of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction by Allied Health Care Practitioners vs Standard Care: The IMMACULATE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few data on remote postdischarge treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of allied health care practitioner-led remote intensive management (RIM) with cardiologist-led standard care (SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This intention-to-treat feasibility trial randomized patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization and with N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration more than 300 pg/mL to RIM or SC across 3 hospitals in Singapore from July 8, 2015, to March 29, 2019. RIM participants underwent 6 months of remote consultations that included ß-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB) dose adjustment by a centralized nurse practitioner team while SC participants were treated face-to-face by their cardiologists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety end point was a composite of hypotension, bradycardia, hyperkalemia, or acute kidney injury requiring hospitalization. To assess the efficacy of RIM in dose adjustment of ß-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs compared with SC, dose intensity scores were derived by converting comparable doses of different ß-blockers and ACE-I/ARBs to a scale from 0 to 5. The primary efficacy end point was the 6-month indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) adjusted for baseline LVESV. Results: Of 301 participants, 149 (49.5%) were randomized to RIM and 152 (50.5%) to SC. RIM and SC participants had similar mean (SD) age (55.3 [8.5] vs 54.7 [9.1] years), median (interquartile range) N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (807 [524-1360] vs 819 [485-1320] pg/mL), mean (SD) baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (57.4% [11.1%] vs 58.1% [10.3%]), and mean (SD) indexed LVESV (32.4 [14.1] vs 30.6 [11.7] mL/m2); 15 patients [5.9%] had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The primary safety end point occurred in 0 RIM vs 2 SC participants (1.4%) (P = .50). The mean ß-blocker and ACE-I/ARB dose intensity score at 6 months was 3.03 vs 2.91 (adjusted mean difference, 0.12 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.26; P = .10]) and 2.96 vs 2.77 (adjusted mean difference, 0.19 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.40; P = .07]), respectively. The 6-month indexed LVESV was 28.9 vs 29.7 mL/m2 (adjusted mean difference, -0.80 mL/m2 [95% CI, -3.20 to 1.60; P = .51]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among low-risk patients with revascularization after myocardial infarction, RIM by allied health care professionals was feasible and safe. There were no differences in achieved medication doses or indices of left ventricular remodeling. Further studies of RIM in higher-risk cohorts are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02468349.

Patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes have elevated long-term thrombin generation.

Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite significant advances in revascularization strategies and antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and/or P2Y12 receptor antagonist, patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to be at long-term risk of further cardiovascular events. Besides platelet activation, the role of thrombin generation (TG) in atherothrombotic complications is widely recognized. In this study, we hypothesized that there is an elevation of coagulation activation persists beyond 12 months in patients with ACS and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) when compared with healthy controls. We measured TG profiles of patients within 72 h after percutaneous coronary intervention, at 6-month, 12-month and 24-month. Our results demonstrated that TG of patients with ACS (n = 114) and CCS (n = 40) were persistently elevated when compared to healthy individuals (n = 50) in peak thrombin (ACS 273.1 nM vs CCS 287.3 nM vs healthy 234.3 nM) and velocity index (ACS 110.2 nM/min vs CCS 111.0 nM/min vs healthy 72.9 nM/min) at 24-month of follow-up. Our results suggest a rationale for addition of anticoagulation to antiplatelet therapy in preventing long-term ischemic events after ACS. Further research could clarify whether the use of TG parameters to enable risk stratification of patients at heightened long-term procoagulant risk who may benefit most from dual pathway inhibition.

Plasma Ceramides as Prognostic Biomarkers and Their Arterial and Myocardial Tissue Correlates in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

We identified a plasma signature of 11 C14 to C26 ceramides and 1 C16 dihydroceramide predictive of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery, those with recent AMI, compared with those without recent AMI, showed a significant increase in 5 of the signature's 12 ceramides in plasma but not simultaneously-biopsied aortic tissue. In contrast, a rat AMI model, compared with sham control, showed a significant increase in myocardial concentrations of all 12 ceramides and up-regulation of 3 ceramide-producing enzymes, suggesting ischemic myocardium as a possible source of this ceramide signature.

Prognostic Implications of Dual Platelet Reactivity Testing in Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Studies on platelet reactivity (PR) testing commonly test PR only after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been performed. There are few data on pre- and post-PCI testing. Data on simultaneous testing of aspirin and adenosine diphosphate antagonist response are conflicting. We investigated the prognostic value of combined serial assessments of high on-aspirin PR (HASPR) and high on-adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist PR (HADPR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). HASPR and HADPR were assessed in 928 ACS patients before (initial test) and 24 hours after (final test) coronary angiography, with or without revascularization. Patients with HASPR on the initial test, compared with those without, had significantly higher intraprocedural thrombotic events (IPTE) (8.6 vs. 1.2%, p ≤ 0.001) and higher 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; 5.2 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.05), but not 12-month MACCE (13.0 vs. 15.1%, p = 0.50). Patients with initial HADPR, compared with those without, had significantly higher IPTE (4.4 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.004), but not 30-day (3.5 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.32) or 12-month MACCE (14.0 vs. 12.5%, p = 0.54). The c-statistic of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score alone, GRACE score + ASPR test and GRACE score + ADPR test for discriminating 30-day MACCE was 0.649, 0.803 and 0.757, respectively. Final ADPR was associated with 30-day MACCE among patients with intermediate-to-high GRACE score (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 4.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-17.66), but not low GRACE score (adjusted OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.13-10.79). In conclusion, both HASPR and HADPR predict ischaemic events in ACS. This predictive utility is time-dependent and risk-dependent.