High on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity and restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the association between high on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity (HAPR) and the subsequent risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with predominantly drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The association between HAPR and subsequent risk of restenosis after PCI is unclear. METHODS: This study included 4839 patients undergoing PCI (02/2007-12/2011) in the setting of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) registry. Platelet function was assessed with impedance aggregometry using the multi-plate analyzer immediately before PCI and after intravenous administration of aspirin (500 mg). The primary outcome was clinical restenosis, defined as target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included binary angiographic restenosis and late lumen loss at 6- to 8-month angiography. RESULTS: The upper quintile cut-off of platelet reactivity measurements (191 AU × min) was used to categorize patients into a group with HAPR (platelet reactivity > 191 AU × min; n = 952) and a group without HAPR (platelet reactivity ≤ 191 AU × min; n = 3887). The primary outcome occurred in 94 patients in the HAPR group and 405 patients without HAPR (cumulative incidence, 9.9% and 10.4%; HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.19; P = 0.70). Follow-up angiography was performed in 73.2% of patients. There was no difference in binary restenosis (15.2% vs. 14.9%; P = 0.79) or late lumen loss (0.32 ± 0.57 vs. 0.32 ± 0.59 mm; P = 0.93) between patients with HAPR versus those without HAPR. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find an association between HAPR, measured at the time of PCI, and clinical restenosis at 1 year after PCI.

The effect of a Prasugrel- vs. a Ticagrelor-based strategy on total ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS: The effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy on total (including both first and recurrent) ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the treatment effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy when both first and recurrent non-fatal ischaemic and bleeding events are taken into account. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 randomized control trial, including all 4018 patients in the trial. The main clinical endpoints of interest included ischaemic events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke] and bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding]. An additional endpoint of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. The effect of the prasugrel vs. ticagrelor based strategies on these endpoints was evaluated on both time-to-first event and total events analyses. Patients in the prasugrel group had a lower risk of MI in comparison to the ticagrelor group on both time-to-first event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.85] and total events [HR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86)] analysis. The risk of BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding was comparable between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups on both time-to-first event [HR = 0.96 (0.75-1.25)] and total events [HR = 0.99 (0.76-1.31)] analysis. CONCLUSION: A prasugrel based strategy was associated with a reduction in total MI events in comparison to a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing invasive assessment. Total BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding events were comparable between the two groups. Given the importance of this topic, future studies to confirm these findings would be welcome. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with off-hour versus on-hour presentation: a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (Pint = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

One-Year Ischemic and Bleeding Events According to Renal Function in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Third-Generation Antiplatelet Drugs.

The optimal antiplatelet therapy of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown. This study included 2,364 patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing predominantly percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The primary end point was 1-year mortality. Overall, there were 85 deaths (3.6%): 6 deaths (17.1%) in patients with eGFR <30, 31 deaths (6.9%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 34 deaths (3.0%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 14 deaths (2.0%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.31; p = 0.033 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrement in the eGFR. Bleeding occurred in 129 patients (5.5%): 7 bleeds (20.2%) in patients with eGFR <30, 36 bleeds (8.0%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 64 bleeds (5.6%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 22 bleeds (3.1%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2; adjusted HR=1.11 (1.01 to 1.23); p = 0.045 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrement in the eGFR. One-year mortality and bleeding did not differ significantly between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function. In conclusion, in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents and third-generation antiplatelet drugs, impaired renal function was independently associated with higher risk of 1-year mortality and bleeding. The ischemic and bleeding risks appear to differ little between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function.

Periprocedural myocardial injury according to optical characteristics of neointima and treatment modality of in-stent restenosis.

AIMS: Aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of increasing neointimal inhomogeneity and neoatherosclerosis as well as of treatment modality of in-stent restenosis (ISR) on the occurrence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with normal or stable/falling increased baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) undergoing intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) and subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ISR by means of drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) were included. Overall, 128 patients were subdivided into low (n = 64) and high (n = 64) inhomogeneity groups, based on the median of distribution of non-homogeneous quadrants. No significant between-group differences were detected in terms of hs-cTnT changes (28.0 [12.0-65.8] vs. 25.5 [9.8-65.0] ng/L; p = 0.355), or the incidence of major PMI (31.2 vs. 31.2%; p = 1.000). Similarly, no differences were observed between DCB- and DES-treated groups in terms of hs-cTn changes (27.0 [10.0-64.0] vs. 28.0 [11.0-73.0] ng/L; p = 0.795), or the incidence of major PMI (28.9 vs. 35.6%; p = 0.566). Additionally, no significant interaction was present between optical neointimal characteristics and treatment modality in terms of changes in hs-cTnT (Pint = 0.432). No significant differences in PMI occurrence were observed between low and high neoatherosclerosis subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI for ISR, there was no association between increasing neointimal inhomogeneity, or increasing expression of neoatherosclerotic changes and occurrence of PMI. PMI occurrence was not influenced by the treatment modality (DCB vs. DES) of ISR lesions, a finding that supports the safety of DCB treatment for ISR.

Target and non-target vessel related events at 10 years post percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIMS: To define the incidence of events related to the stented vessel (target vessel related events: TVRE) and events related to non-stented vessels (non-target vessel related events: NTVRE) through to 10-year follow-up in patients post-PCI with newer generation drug eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The current study is a post-hoc analysis of patient level data from two randomised controlled trials in Germany. Patients older than 18 years with ischemic symptoms or evidence of myocardial ischemia in the presence of ≥ 50% de novo stenosis located in the native coronary vessels were considered eligible. The endpoints of interest were TVRE (a composite of first target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) and NTVRE (a composite of first non-target vessel MI or non-target vessel revascularization) through to 10 years post PCI. We included 4953 patients in this analysis. Through to 10-years post-PCI, TVRE occurred in 1238 of 4953 patients (cumulative incidence: 25.8%) and NTVRE occurred in 1442 of 4953 patients (cumulative incidence: 30.3%). The majority of TVRE and NTVRE were revascularization events. From 0 to 1 years, the cumulative incidence of TVRE was 15.9% and of NTVRE was 12.3%. From 1 to 10 years, the cumulative incidences of TVRE and NTVRE were 11.2% and 22.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: At 10-year post-PCI with new generation drug eluting stents, events related to remote vessel disease progression account for a higher proportion of events than events related to the stented vessel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISAR TEST 4 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00598676. ISAR TEST 5 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00598533.

Pre-admission antiplatelet therapy and treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes-a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

AIMS: To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10-2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3-5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54). CONCLUSION: In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.

Meta-Analysis of Short vs. Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and Role of Continuation with either Aspirin or a P2Y12 Inhibitor Thereafter.

AIM: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is an ongoing debate and novel data has emerged. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess outcomes of short vs. control DAPT duration. In addition, the role of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after DAPT with either aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was analyzed. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ≤ 3 months with ≥ 6 months DAPT after DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding. In addition, we performed an analysis on studies who continued with either aspirin or P2Y12 monotherapy after DAPT. RESULTS: 9 RCTs comprising 41,864 patients were included and we analyzed a short DAPT duration of median 1.5 months vs. 12.1 months in the control group. The risk for ST was similar with short vs. control DAPT duration (0.5 vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio 1.17[95% CI 0.89-1.54]; p=0.26). Bleeding was significantly reduced with short vs. control DAPT duration (1.9 vs. 3.0%; 0.65[0.54-0.77]; p＜0.0001).ST was not different between short vs. control DAPT duration in the analysis of the 4 RCTs who continued with aspirin after DAPT and the 5 P2Y12 RCTs, respectively, and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.861). Bleeding was also reduced with short vs. control DAPT in both the aspirin (1.2 vs. 1.7%; 0.71[0.51-0.99]; p=0.04) and P2Y12 inhibitor studies (2.1 vs. 3.4%; 0.62[0.47-0.80]; p=0.0003) and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.515). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows that short DAPT ≤ 3 months followed by SAPT reduces bleeding and is not associated with an increase in ST. The results were consistent within the aspirin and P2Y12 SAPT studies.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Women and Men with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pre-specified, Sex-Specific Analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 Trial.

AIM: Sex-specific analyses of direct head-to-head comparisons between newer P2Y12 inhibitors are limited. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in women and men with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) planned for an invasive strategy. METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 956 women and 3,062 men with ACS randomly assigned to either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was the 12-month incidence of bleeding (type 3-5 according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC]). RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 42 women (8.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 39 women (8.3%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.70, P=0.657) and in 142 men (9.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 98 men (6.5%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.47 [1.13-1.90], P=0.004; P for interaction [Pint]=0.275). BARC type 3-5 bleeding occurred in 36 women (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and 34 women (9.7%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.04 [0.65-1.67], P=0.856) and in 59 men in the ticagrelor group (4.4%) and 46 men (3.6%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.24 [0.85-1.83], P=0.266; Pint=0.571). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect of study drugs, the superior efficacy of prasugrel was more evident among men. No difference in bleeding between the two study groups was seen for both women and men.

Body mass index and efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) according to body mass index (BMI) remain unstudied. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with ACS according to BMI. METHODS: Patients (n=3987) were grouped into 3 categories: normal weight (BMI <25kg/m2; n=1084), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to <30kg/m2; n=1890), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30kg/m2; n=1013). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1 year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary safety endpoint was the 1 year incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 63 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 39 patients assigned to prasugrel in the normal weight group (11.7% vs 7.5%; HR, 1.62; 95%CI, 1.09-2.42; P=.018), 78 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 58 patients assigned to prasugrel in the overweight group (8.3% vs 6.2%; HR, 1.36; 95%CI, 0.97-1.91; P=.076), and 43 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 37 patients assigned to prasugrel in the obesity group (8.6% vs 7.3%; HR, 1.18; 95%CI, 0.76-1.84; P=.451). The 1-year incidence of bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with normal weight (6.5% vs 6.6%; P=.990), overweight (5.6% vs 5.0%; P=.566) or obesity (4.4% vs 2.8%; P=.219). There was no significant treatment arm-by-BMI interaction regarding the primary endpoint (Pint=.578) or secondary endpoint (Pint=.596). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, BMI did not significantly impact the treatment effect of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy or safety. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Assessment of Impact of Patient Recruitment Volume on Risk Profile, Outcomes, and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND Whether there are differences in the risk profile and treatment effect in patients recruited in a low recruitment center (LRC) versus patients recruited in a high recruitment center (HRC) in a randomized multicenter trial remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS This study included 4018 patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in the ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) trial. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Overall, 3011 patients (75%) were recruited in the HRCs (7 centers recruiting 258 to 628 patients; median, 413 patients) and 1007 patients (25%) were recruited in the LRCs (16 centers recruiting 5 to 201 patients; median, 52 patients). Patients recruited in the LRCs had more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles than patients recruited in the HRCs. The primary end point occurred in 72 patients in the LRCs and 249 patients in the HRCs (cumulative incidence, 7.3% and 8.4%; P=0.267). All-cause mortality was lower among patients recruited in the LRCs (n=29) than among patients recruited in the HRCs (n=134; cumulative incidence 2.9% versus 4.5%; P=0.031). There was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel and patient recruitment category (LRC versus HRC) regarding the primary efficacy end point (LRC: hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.89-2.28]; HRC: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04-1.72]; P for interaction=0.800). CONCLUSIONS Patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in a LRC appear to have more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles and lower 1-year mortality rates compared with patients recruited in a HRC. The recruitment volume did not interact with the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Prognostic value of glomerular function estimated by Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance, MDRD-4, CKD-EPI and European Kidney Function Consortium equations in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: It remains unknown which equation used to assess the glomerular function is better for risk stratification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: This study included 3985 patients with ACS. Glomerular function was assessed using 4 equations: the Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (C-GCrCl), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease-4 (MDRD-4), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equations. The primary outcome was one-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: For each 30 ml/min decrement, the adjusted hazard ratio [HR] with 95% confidence interval [CI] for one-year mortality was 1.67 [1.27-2.25] for C-GCrCl, 1.45 [1.16-1.81] for MDRD-4, 1.76 [1.35-2.30] for CKD-EPI and 1.94 [1.44-2.63] for EKFC equation. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for one-year mortality was 0.748 [0.709-0.788] for C-GCrCl, 0.670 [0.621-0.718] for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated by MDRD-4 equation, 0.725 [0.684-0.765] for eGFR calculated by CKD-EPI equation and 0.741 [0.703-0.779] for eGFR calculated by EKFC equation (P = 0.342 for C-GCrCl, vs. EKFC equation and P ≤ 0.009 for all other AUC comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, C-GCrCl and EKFC equations showed a similar discriminatory power regarding prediction of one-year mortality. Both equations were better than MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI equations for risk discrimination for mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). BACKGROUND: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. METHODS: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m2), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m2), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year. RESULTS: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800).

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding. Results: The ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

[Figure: see text].

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in smokers and nonsmokers with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). RESULTS: There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10-1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49-1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94-2.01]; P = 0.097). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices vs Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation - Post Hoc Analysis of the ISAR-CLOSURE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare vascular closure devices (VCD) with manual compression (MC) in patients on chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo diagnostic coronary angiography in terms of vascular access-site complications. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of 604 patients that had undergone transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography and were randomly assigned to arteriotomy closure with either VCDs (intravascular FemoSeal VCD or extravascular EXOSEAL VCD) or MC within the large scale, randomized ISAR-CLOSURE trial. Primary endpoint was the composite of access-site-related vascular complications at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were time to hemostasis and repeat MC. RESULTS: Vascular access-site complications were similar in patients assigned to VCDs compared to MC (8.2% vs 10.6%; P=.33). There was no interaction of treatment effect and OAC (P interaction = 0.59). Rates of pseudoaneurysms were lower with VCDs (0.8% vs 3.2%; P=.02). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCDs compared to MC (1 [IQR 0.5-2.0] min vs 12 [IQR 10-15] min; P<.001). There was no difference regarding repeat MC in both groups (VCD 1.5% vs MC 0.5%; P=.23). Time to hemostasis (0.5 [0.2-1.0] min, vs 2.0 [1.75-2.0] min; P<.001) and closure device failure (3.7% vs 17.2%; P<.001) were lower with the intravascular VCD, compared with the extravascular VCD. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on chronic OAC undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography, the use of VCDs was comparable to MC regarding the primary combined endpoint of vascular access-site related complications. VCDs reduced the occurrence of pseudoaneurysms and time to hemostasis.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom invasive therapy was planned. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS with DM undergoing invasive treatment remain unknown. METHODS: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial included 892 patients with ACS with DM and 3,124 patients with ACS without DM randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding (both assessed 12 months after randomization). RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (11.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 55 patients (13.0%) in the prasugrel group in the DM cohort (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 1.24; p = 0.383) and in 132 patients (8.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 81 patients (5.2%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (hazard ratio: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 2.24; p < 0.001). There was a significant treatment arm-by-diabetic status interaction (pint = 0.0035). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 27 patients (6.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 19 patients (5.5%) in the prasugrel group (p = 0.425) in the DM cohort and in 68 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 60 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (p = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS: DM seems to affect the efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. In patients with DM, the efficacy of ticagrelor was comparable with that of prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800).

Age- and Weight-Adapted Dose of Prasugrel Versus Standard Dose of Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Results From a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800). DESIGN: Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. SETTING: 23 centers in Germany and Italy. PATIENTS: 3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group). MEASUREMENTS: The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2). LIMITATION: The study is a subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.

Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices Versus Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Women.

BACKGROUND: The value of vascular closure devices (VCD) in women undergoing transfemoral catheterization has not been sufficiently investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a sex-specific analysis of 1395 women enrolled in a large-scale, randomized, multicenter trial, in which patients undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to arteriotomy closure with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression (MC). Primary objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of 2 different VCD compared with MC regarding vascular access-site complications at 30 days. A secondary comparison was between 2 different types of contemporary VCD. Overall, women were at higher risk for vascular access-site complications compared with men (9.0% versus 6.4%; P=0.002). Vascular access-site complications were comparable in women assigned to VCD and MC (8.6% versus 9.8%; P=0.451). There was no interaction of treatment effect and sex ( Pinteraction=0.970). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCD compared with MC (1 [interquartile range, 0.5-2.0] minutes) versus 11 [interquartile range, 10-15] minutes; P<0.001); however, more women with VCD required repeat MC (2.4% versus 0.6%; P=0.018). The use of the intravascular compared with the extravascular VCD was associated with a numerical reduction in vascular access-site complications (6.6% versus 10.7%; P=0.027) and significant reductions in time to hemostasis and VCD failure. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography via the common femoral artery, VCD and MC provided comparable safety, while time to hemostasis was reduced with VCD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01389375.