Left Ventricular Twist and the "Rigid Body Rotation" Pattern in Patients Treated with Anthracyclines or Anti-HER2.

Background: During the physiological cardiac cycle, the helix orientation of the muscle fibres induces the rotation of the apex relative to the base of the left ventricular (LV). In heart failure, LV torsion is impaired, and rotation at basal and apical levels occurs in the same direction, a phenomenon called rigid body rotation (RBR). We aimed to evaluate whether the RBR pattern and GLS together could improve the diagnosis of cardiotoxicity in patients treated with anthracyclines and/or anti-HER2. Methods: With an observational, retrospective study involving 175 patients (mean age 55 ± 12 years, 94% females), we evaluated the development of cancer therapeutic-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) defined according to ESC guidelines. We characterised LV dysfunction by echocardiographic standard and speckle-tracking (GLS and RBR pattern) measurements. Patients with a previous diagnosis of structural heart disease or atrial fibrillation were excluded. Results: At the time of enrolment, the chemotherapy regimen included trastuzumab (96%), pertuzumab (21%), and anthracyclines (13%). Twenty-two patients (12.5%) developed cardiotoxicity, and thirteen patients developed an RBR within 6 months of follow-up. In all cases, the RBR pattern was associated with cardiotoxicity (p < 0.001), reporting an optimal specificity but poor sensitivity at three and six months. However, the addition of the RBR pattern to the global longitudinal strain (GLS) ≥ -16% increased the odds ratio (OR) from 25.6 to 32.6 at three months and from 32.5 to 49.6 at six months rather than GLS alone. Conclusions: The RBR pattern improves the diagnostic accuracy of GLS for the detection of cardiotoxicity secondary to anthracyclines and anti-HER2-based treatments.

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.

Poor responsiveness to clopidogrel: drug-specific or class-effect mechanism? Evidence from a clopidogrel-to-ticlopidine crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate whether poor responders to thienopyridines after clopidogrel remain so even after ticlopidine administration (class effect) or whether a drug-specific effect exists between currently available thienopyridines. BACKGROUND: Whether clopidogrel poor responders also display inadequate platelet inhibition after ticlopidine administration remains undefined. METHODS: Platelet aggregation (PA) was measured in 143 patients, while they were taking aspirin, with light transmission aggregometry using adenosine diphosphate as an agonist at baseline (T0) and at clopidogrel steady state (T1). After T1) clopidogrel was stopped and substituted with ticlopidine. Then PA was assessed at ticlopidine steady state (T2). Resistance was defined as an absolute difference between T0 and after-treatment (T1 or T2) PA < or =10%. RESULTS: Clopidogrel and ticlopidine responsiveness was normally distributed; PA at T1 did not differ compared with T2. Thirty (21%) and 28 (19%) patients were clopidogrel and ticlopidine nonresponders, respectively. Only 5 patients (3.5%) were nonresponders to both clopidogrel and ticlopidine (class effect), whereas 25 patients (83%) who were clopidogrel nonresponders at T1 were responsive to ticlopidine, reaching a higher level of platelet inhibition at T2 (PA 69 +/- 15 vs. 44 +/- 18, p < 0.01) (drug-specific response). On the other hand, 23 patients who were responsive to clopidogrel showed resistance to ticlopidine at T2 (PA 46 +/- 15 vs. 70 +/- 15, p < 0.01) (drug-specific response). CONCLUSIONS: Poor responsiveness to either clopidogrel or ticlopidine at steady state was common, whereas nonresponders to both drugs were relatively infrequent (3.5%, 95% confidence interval 1.5% to 7.9%), suggesting that poor response to thienopyridines may frequently be a drug-specific mechanism.