ABSTRACT
Exercise training (ET) can lower platelet reactivity in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. However, the effects of ET on platelet reactivity in higher-risk patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ET on platelet reactivity in patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI). Ninety patients were randomly assigned 1 month post-MI to the intervention (patients submitted to a supervised ET program) or control group. All patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Platelet reactivity by VerifyNow-P2Y12 (measured by P2Y12 reaction units - PRUs) test was determined at baseline and at the end of 14 ± 2 weeks of follow-up at rest (primary endpoint), and multiplate electrode aggregometry (MEA) adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and aspirin (ASPI) tests were performed immediately before and after the maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) at the same time points (secondary endpoints). Sixty-five patients (mean age 58.9 ± 10 years; 73.8% men; 60% ST elevation MI) completed follow-up (control group, n = 31; intervention group, n = 34). At the end of the follow-up, the mean platelet reactivity was 172.8 ± 68.9 PRUs and 166.9 ± 65.1 PRUs for the control and intervention groups, respectively (p = .72). Platelet reactivity was significantly increased after the CPET compared to rest at the beginning and at the end of the 14-week follow-up (among the intervention groups) by the MEA-ADP and MEA-ASPI tests (p < .01 for all analyses). In post-MI patients on DAPT, 14 weeks of supervised ET did not reduce platelet reactivity. Moreover, platelet reactivity was increased after high-intensity exercise (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02958657; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02958657).
What is the context? Platelet reactivity is reduced after exercise training in healthy individuals and patients with cardiovascular risk factors, but the effect in higher-risk patients is unknown.High-intensity exercise in untrained individuals increases platelet reactivity. The effect of dual antiplatelet therapy in inhibiting exercise-induced hyperreactivity is poorly understood.What's new?Exercise training did not reduce platelet reactivity in post-myocardial infarction patients.High-intensity exercise increased platelet reactivity in post-myocardial infarction patients on dual antiplatelet therapy.Exercise training did not attenuate the exercise-induced increase in platelet reactivity.What's the impact?The study suggests that strenuous exercise, if indicated, should be applied carefully to patients with high risk of recurrent ischemic events, even if on optimal medical therapy and after being trained.
Subject(s)
Myocardial Infarction , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Male , Humans , Middle Aged , Aged , Female , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Blood Platelets , Myocardial Infarction/drug therapy , Aspirin/adverse effects , Adenosine Diphosphate/pharmacology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Platelet AggregationABSTRACT
AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.
