Monotherapy with P2Y12-inhibitors after dual antiplatelet therapy: Filling gaps in evidence.

BACKGROUND: Whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12-I) is superior to aspirin following DAPT discontinuation post-PCI remains to be established. METHODS: We updated our prior network meta-analysis where P2Y12-I and aspirin had been compared with DAPT or directly with each other. The focus is specifically on the available direct evidence, now consisting of the three head-to-head comparisons of P2Y12-I and aspirin in event-free PCI patients after DAPT. We include a Trial Sequential Analysis of the direct evidence based on meta-analytical literature. RESULTS: The main finding reveals a 39% significantly lower risk of myocardial infarction with P2Y12-I (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.78, p = 0.0001, I2 = 0%) with no difference in bleeding. Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrates clinically meaningful evidence for a reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction with P2Y12-I that is also supported by statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Accruing data highlight that P2Y12-I following DAPT discontinuation after PCI is associated with lower risk for MI and a similar risk for bleeding as compared with ASA. In light of potential limitations to the widespread adoption of life-long P2Y12-I treatment, clinicians should consider identifying selected patients who are expected to derive the highest benefit.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Parenteral P2Y12 Inhibitors: Rationale, Evidence, and Future Directions.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and an inhibitor of the platelet P2Y12 receptor for ADP, remains among the most investigated treatments in cardiovascular medicine. While a substantial amount of research initially stemmed from the observations of late and very late stent thrombosis events in the first-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) era, DAPT has been recently transitioning from a purely stent-related to a more systemic secondary prevention strategy. Oral and parenteral platelet P2Y12 inhibitors are currently available for clinical use. The latter have been shown to be extremely suitable in drug-naïve patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly because oral P2Y12 inhibitors are associated with delayed efficacy in patients with STEMI and because pre-treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors is discouraged in NSTE-ACS, and in patients with recent DES implantation and in need of urgent cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. More definitive evidence is needed, however, about optimal switching strategies between parenteral and oral P2Y12 inhibitors and about newer potent subcutaneous agents that are being developed for the pre-hospital setting.

The new HFA/ICOS risk assessment tool to identify patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia at high risk of cardiotoxicity.

AIMS: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used to treat chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) can cause cardiovascular adverse events. So far, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) charts of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have been used to identify cancer patients at increased cardiovascular risk. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the usefulness of the new cardiovascular risk assessment model proposed by the Cardio-Oncology Study Group of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society (ICOS) to stratify the cardiovascular risk in CML patients, compared with SCORE risk charts. The secondary aim was to establish the incidence of adverse arterial events (AEs) in patients with CML treated with TKIs and the influence of preventive treatment with aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective single-centre observational study was carried out on 58 patients (32 men and 26 women; mean age ± SD: 59 ± 15 years) with CML treated with TKIs for a median period of 43 ± 31 months. Cardiological evaluation was performed and cardiovascular risk was estimated with SCORE risk charts and with the new risk assessment tool proposed by HFA/ICOS. AEs were recorded. According to SCORE charts and the new HFA/ICOS risk stratification tool, respectively, 46% (Group A1) and 60% (Group A2) of patients were at high-very high risk, and 54% (Group B1) and 40% (Group B2) at low-moderate risk. AEs were significantly more frequent in Group A1 than Group B1 (P value < 0.01) when considered overall; they were significantly more frequent in Group A2 than Group B2 either overall or considered individually. HFA/ICOS risk stratification tool was significantly more sensitive than SCORE (P < 0.01) in identifying patients at higher risk of cardiovascular toxicity. In addition, we did not find AEs in patients pretreated with aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: The new HFA/ICOS risk stratification model allows a more tailored cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with CML and it is more sensitive than SCORE charts.