Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel on Coronary Microcirculation in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Clopidogrel has been demonstrated to be effective in improving coronary microcirculation (CM) among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytics. Ticagrelor is a more potent adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor blocker proven to be superior to clopidogrel among patients with acute coronary syndromes. The present study aimed to compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on CM in patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics. METHODS: The present study prospectively included 48 patients participating in the TREAT trial, which randomly assigned patients with STEMI undergoing fibrinolysis to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. The primary endpoint of this study was the evaluation of the CM using the global myocardial perfusion score index (global MPSI) obtained by myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE). Platelet aggregation to ADP was evaluated by Multiplate® and expressed as area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The global MPSI demonstrated no differences between the groups [mean 1.4 (1.2-1.5) in the ticagrelor group and 1.2 (1.2-1.5) in the clopidogrel group (p = 0.41)]. Platelet aggregability was lower in the ticagrelor group (18.1 ± 9.7 AUC), compared to the clopidogrel group (26.1 ± 12.5 AUC, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found no improvement in coronary microcirculation with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytics, despite the fact that platelet aggregation to ADP was lower with ticagrelor. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03104062.

Complete Treatment Versus Residual Lesion - Long-Term Evolution After Acute Coronary Syndrome / Tratamento Completo Versus Lesão Residual - Evolução a Longo Prazo Após Síndrome Coronariana Aguda

Abstract Introduction: A recently published study raised doubts about the need for percutaneous treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Methods: Retrospective, unicentric, observational study. Objective: To analyze the long-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of the culprit artery, comparing those who remained with significant residual lesions in nonculprit arteries (group I) versus those without residual lesions in other coronary artery beds (group II). The study included 580 patients (284 in group I and 296 in group II) between May 2010 and May 2013. We obtained demographic and clinical data, as well as information regarding the coronary treatment administered to the patients. In the statistical analysis, the primary outcome included combined events (reinfarction/angina, death, heart failure, and need for reintervention). The comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square test and ANOVA. The long-term analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method, with a mean follow-up of 9.86 months. Results: The mean ages were 63 years in group I and 62 years in group II. On long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in combined events in groups I and II (31.9% versus 35.6%, respectively, p = 0.76). Conclusion: The strategy of treating the culprit artery alone seems safe. In this study, no long-term differences in combined endpoints were observed between patients who remained with significant lesions compared with those without other obstructions.

Resumo Fundamento: Um estudo publicado recentemente levantou dúvidas sobre a necessidade de abordagem percutânea de lesões não culpadas em pacientes com síndromes coronarianas agudas (SCA). Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo, unicêntrico e observacional. Objetivo: Comparar desfechos a longo prazo entre pacientes submetidos à abordagem da artéria culpada, comparando os que permaneceram com lesões residuais significativas em artérias não culpadas (grupo I) versus aqueles sem lesões residuais em outros leitos coronarianos (grupo II). Foram incluídos 580 pacientes (284 no grupo I e 296 no grupo II) entre maio de 2010 e maio de 2013. Foram obtidos dados demográficos e clínicos, além de informações sobre o tratamento coronariano administrado aos pacientes. Na análise estatística, o desfecho primário incluiu eventos combinados (reinfarto/angina, morte, insuficiência cardíaca e necessidade de reintervenção). A comparação entre grupos foi realizada através do teste do qui-quadrado e ANOVA. A análise a longo prazo foi realizada pelo método de Kaplan-Meier, com seguimento médio de 9,86 meses. Resultados: As médias das idades foram de 63 anos no grupo I e 62 anos no grupo II. O seguimento a longo prazo não mostrou diferença significativa em eventos combinados nos grupos I e II (31,9% versus 35,6%, respectivamente, p = 0,76). Conclusão: A estratégia de tratar somente a artéria considerada culpada parece segura. Neste estudo, não houve diferenças a longo prazo em desfechos combinados entre pacientes que permaneceram com lesões significativas comparativamente àqueles sem outras obstruções.

Complete Treatment Versus Residual Lesion - Long-Term Evolution After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: A recently published study raised doubts about the need for percutaneous treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: Retrospective, unicentric, observational study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the long-term outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of the culprit artery, comparing those who remained with significant residual lesions in nonculprit arteries (group I) versus those without residual lesions in other coronary artery beds (group II). The study included 580 patients (284 in group I and 296 in group II) between May 2010 and May 2013. We obtained demographic and clinical data, as well as information regarding the coronary treatment administered to the patients. In the statistical analysis, the primary outcome included combined events (reinfarction/angina, death, heart failure, and need for reintervention). The comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square test and ANOVA. The long-term analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method, with a mean follow-up of 9.86 months. RESULTS: The mean ages were 63 years in group I and 62 years in group II. On long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in combined events in groups I and II (31.9% versus 35.6%, respectively, p = 0.76). CONCLUSION: The strategy of treating the culprit artery alone seems safe. In this study, no long-term differences in combined endpoints were observed between patients who remained with significant lesions compared with those without other obstructions.