ABSTRACT
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS.
ABSTRACT
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is currently the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies suggest that reducing DAPT to 1-3 months followed by an aspirin-free single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) strategy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor is safe and associated with less bleeding. However, to date, no randomised trial has tested the impact of initiating SAPT immediately after PCI, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). NEOMINDSET is a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial with a blinded outcome assessment designed to compare SAPT versus DAPT in 3,400 ACS patients undergoing PCI with the latest-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). After successful PCI and up to 4 days following hospital admission, patients are randomised to receive SAPT with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) or DAPT (aspirin plus a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) for 12 months. Aspirin is discontinued immediately after randomisation in the SAPT group. The choice between ticagrelor and prasugrel is at the investigator's discretion. The primary hypothesis is that SAPT will be non-inferior to DAPT with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularisation, but superior to DAPT on rates of bleeding defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3 or 5 criteria. NEOMINDSET is the first study that is specifically designed to test SAPT versus DAPT immediately following PCI with DES in ACS patients. This trial will provide important insights on the efficacy and safety of withdrawing aspirin in the early phase of ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04360720).
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , Drug-Eluting Stents , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Ticagrelor/therapeutic use , Acute Coronary Syndrome/drug therapy , Acute Coronary Syndrome/surgery , Prasugrel Hydrochloride/therapeutic use , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Drug Therapy, Combination , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic cardiac disease of great importance worldwide and responsible for one-fifth of hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in Brazil. Pro-inflammatory mediators are involved in the pathophysiology of HF. However, the impact of inflammatory markers on the prognosis of the disease remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate inflammation as a prognostic marker in chronic HF. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, observational cohort study conducted from June 2018 through December 2019, we included outpatients with HF from a specialized service of a teaching hospital. Patients with decompensated HF requiring hospitalization in the last 30 days were excluded. At the time of inclusion, serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin were collected and the presence of inflammation was defined as CRP/albumin ≥1.2. Patients with CRP/albumin ratio <1.2 (group A) and CRP/albumin ratio ≥1.2 (group B) were compared. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were hospitalization for decompensated HF, number of hospitalizations, and number of days of hospitalization in the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: We included 77 patients, 49 (63.3%) in group A and 28 (3.4%) in group B. Six patients in group A (12.2%) and 10 patients in group B (35.7%) required at least one hospitalization during follow-up (p=0.01). The rate of hospitalizations for decompensated HF for every 100 patients was 16.3 in group A vs 50.0 in group B (p=0.0001) and the average in-hospital length of stay was 12.2 vs 14.2 days per hospitalized patient (p=0.36) in groups A and B, respectively. The mortality rate was 6.1% in group A vs 7.1% in group B (p=0.86). CONCLUSION: In HF outpatients with inflammation evidentiated by the CRP/albumin ratio ≥1.2, the risk of death was similar to patients without inflammation criteria. However, the presence of inflammation led to a three-fold higher risk of hospitalization for HF decompensation.
