Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Optimal sample size allocation for two-arm superiority and non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints.

The sample size of a clinical trial has to be large enough to ensure sufficient power for achieving the aim the study. On the other side, for ethical and economical reasons it should not be larger than necessary. The sample size allocation is one of the parameters that influences the required total sample size. For two-arm superiority and non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints, we performed extensive computations over a wide range of scenarios to determine the optimal allocation ratio that minimizes the total sample size if all other parameters are fixed. The results demonstrate, that for both superiority and non-inferiority trials the optimal allocation may deviate considerably from the case of equal sample size in both groups. However, the saving in sample size when allocating the total sample size optimally as compared to balanced allocation is typically small.

Plasma Soluble Glycoprotein VI, Platelet Function, Bleeding, and Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycoprotein VI (GPVI) is the major platelet-specific collagen receptor. GPVI shedding with generation of soluble GPVI (sGPVI) is an endogenous feedback mechanism preventing platelet overstimulation. sGPVI has not been investigated in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially regarding its potential value as a predictor of ischemic and bleeding risk. METHODS: Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were available in 318 patients with CCS undergoing PCI. Platelet function was assessed by measuring both adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Co-primary endpoints were a composite of death or myocardial injury at 48 hours after PCI, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: There was no significant correlation between sGPVI and platelet function at baseline or at 48 hours after PCI and loading with antiplatelet drugs. Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were not associated with the ischemic risk: the incidence of the ischemic endpoint was 25.0% in the lower, 22.9% in the middle, and 26.7% in the upper sGPVI tertile (p = 0.82). There was a significant nonlinear relationship between sGPVI and the risk of bleeding: the incidence of the bleeding endpoint was 11.8% in the lower, 12.6% in the middle, and 26.4% in the upper sGPVI tertile (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In patients with CCS undergoing PCI, plasma levels of sGPVI did not correlate with ADP- or collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Patients with higher baseline levels of sGPVI may carry an increased risk of bleeding at 30 days after PCI but no excess risk of ischemic events.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.

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.

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.

Immature Platelet Fraction Predicts Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: the ISAR-REACT 5 Reticulated Platelet Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Immature or reticulated platelets are associated with impaired efficacy of antiplatelet drugs and adverse events in cardiovascular patients. Their role as a predictive biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is not fully understood. We aimed to prospectively evaluate reticulated platelets as a predictor of the primary end point of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: Immature platelet fraction (IPF) was assessed within 48 hours after randomization. Patients were divided based on the IPF median values: the IPFhigh group included patients with IPF>median and the IPFlow group included patients with IPF≤median. Platelet aggregation was assessed using the Multiplate Analyzer and was correlated to IPF. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-seven patients were included in the study. IPF values in % (median [interquartile range]) within the first 48 hours did not differ between the two study groups: 3.6 (2.5-5.2)% in the prasugrel group and 3.6 (2.5-5.4)% in the ticagrelor group (P=0.882). The incidence of the primary end point was significantly higher in the IPFhigh (IPF>3.6%) group compared with the IPFlow (IPF≤3.6%) group: 13.0% versus 7.2% (HRadj, 1.74 [1.02-3.00]; P=0.044), independently from the assigned drug (Pint=0.159). No significant association between IPF and BARC 3 to 5 bleeding was observed. ADP-induced platelet aggregation correlated significantly with IPF in patients treated with prasugrel (r=0.22; P=0.005) while no correlation was detected in patients treated with ticagrelor (r=0.09; P=0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Independently from drug treatment, IPF was associated with the primary end point and therefore is a promising biomarker for the prediction of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. REGISTRATION: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

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.

Access Route and Clinical Outcomes After Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Twelve-month clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

AIMS: Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a higher risk of ischaemic events. However, no study has analysed the effect of PCI complexity on outcomes in a contemporary cohort of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with a dual anti-platelet therapy regimen based on potent P2Y12-inhibitors. Therefore, we performed the current analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: This analysis included all ACS patients treated with PCI in the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 5 trial. Complex PCI was defined as at least one of: multi-vessel PCI, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, and total stented length >60 mm. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 12 months; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3-5 bleeding at 12 months. Overall, 3377 patients were included in this analysis (complex PCI, n = 1429; non-complex PCI, n = 1948). The primary endpoint occurred more frequently in the complex PCI group than the non-complex PCI group [10.1% vs. 7.2%, hazard ratio (HR): 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.14-1.82), P = 0.002], driven primarily by a higher risk of MI [HR: 1.62, (1.17-2.26), P = 0.004]. The safety endpoint was not statistically different between patients undergoing complex vs. non-complex PCI, although it was numerically higher in the complex PCI group [6.7% vs. 5.3%, HR: 1.28, (0.97-1.70), P = 0.08]. CONCLUSIONS: Acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing complex PCI have an increased incidence of ischaemic events compared with ACS patients undergoing non-complex PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800, Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Vs. Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome-Full-Text View-ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/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).

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 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.