ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy is the current standard of care after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We intended to study the pattern of use of ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI and the effect of switching over to other P2Y12 receptor inhibition on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: All patients aged > 18 years who had been admitted with acute coronary syndrome and had been provided ticagrelor as the second antiplatelet agent were included as study participants. The primary outcome of the study was the composite outcome of death, recurrent myocardial infarctions, re-intervention, and major bleeding. We studied 321 patients (54 female patients, 16.82%). The mean age of the patients was 56.65 ± 11.01 years. Ticagrelor was stopped in 76.7% on follow-up. It was stopped in 6.3%, 13.5%, 13.1%, 21.9%, and 45.1% of patients during the first month but after discharge, between first and third months, between 3 and 6 months, between 6 and 12 months, and after 12 months, respectively. In the majority of patients, ticagrelor was replaced by clopidogrel (97.9%). It was stopped according to the physician's discretion in 79.3% of patients, whereas it was the cost of the drug that made the patient to get swapped to another agent in 18.6%. No difference in the primary composite outcome was observed between the groups where ticagrelor was continued post 12 months and ticagrelor was continued and ticagrelor was switched-over to another agent. Similarly, no difference in death, recurrent myocardial infarctions, re-interventions, or major bleeding manifestations was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome who undergo PCI, we observed that early discontinuation of ticagrelor and switching over to other P2Y12 inhibitors after discharge did not affect clinical outcomes.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In regional systems of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care, patients presenting to hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are transferred to PCI-capable hospitals for primary PCI. Repatriation, a practice whereby such patients are transferred back to non-PCI referral hospitals after reperfusion is prevalent in many jurisdictions, yet little is known of this practice and its safety. METHODS: We studied 979 consecutive STEMI patients transported from the emergency department and catchment area of two non-PCI hospitals in Ontario, Canada to a regional PCI-hospital for primary PCI between January 2008 and June 2014. Logistic regression modeling was performed to determine factors associated with delayed repatriation beyond 24 hours and to evaluate the association between repatriation and index-admission mortality. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifteen (83.2%) patients were repatriated with 524 (65.2%) patients repatriated within 24 hours. Factors independently associated with delayed repatriation included systolic blood pressure (OR 1.03 per 5 mmHg decrease, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P= .04), requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR 24.9, 95% CI 5.4-115.3, P< .0001), ventricular arrhythmia (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-6.6, P= .01), infarct-related artery (P= .03), final TIMI flow grade (P= .01) and access-site complications (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.04-5.4, P= .04). After repatriation, 9 (1.3%) patients returned to the PCI-hospital for urgent care, and 16 (2.0%) died during index-admission. After adjustment, repatriation was not associated with increase in index-admission mortality (adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16-1.32, P= .15). CONCLUSIONS: In a regional STEMI care system in Ontario, Canada, patients are routinely repatriated to non-PCI hospitals after primary PCI. This practice was associated with very low and acceptable rate of return to the PCI-hospital during index-admission without an adverse impact on short-term outcomes.
