Precision Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Precision PCI) Registry - Informing optimal antiplatelet strategies.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) is indicated after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce the risk of atherothrombotic events. Approximately 30% of the US population has a CYP2C19 no-function allele that reduces the effectiveness of clopidogrel, but not prasugrel or ticagrelor, after PCI. We have shown improved outcomes with the integration of CYP2C19 genotyping into clinical care to guide the selection of prasugrel or ticagrelor in CYP2C19 no-function allele carriers. However, the influence of patient-specific demographic, clinical, and other genetic factors on outcomes with genotype-guided DAPT has not been defined. In addition, the impact of genotype-guided de-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients without a CYP2C19 no-function allele has not been investigated in a diverse, real-world clinical setting. The Precision Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Precision PCI) Registry is a multicenter US registry of patients who underwent PCI and clinical CYP2C19 testing. The registry is enrolling a diverse population, assessing atherothrombotic and bleeding events over 12 months, collecting DNA samples, and conducting platelet function testing in a subset of patients. The registry aims to define the influence of African ancestry and other patient-specific factors on clinical outcomes with CYP2C19-guided DAPT, evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CYP2C19-guided DAPT de-escalation following PCI in a real-world setting, and identify additional genetic influences of clopidogrel response after PCI, with the ultimate goal of establishing optimal strategies for individualized antiplatelet therapy that improves outcomes in a diverse, real-world population.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Aspirin-Free Strategy for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Oral Anticoagulation: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis From the STOPDAPT-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of aspirin-free strategy on bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) have not been fully elucidated. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on the use of OAC, including vitamin K antagonist and direct oral anticoagulants, within 7 days before percutaneous coronary intervention in the STOPDAPT-3 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy-3) trial, which randomly compared prasugrel monotherapy (2984 patients) to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with prasugrel and aspirin (2982 patients) in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. The coprimary end points were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. Among 5966 study patients, there were 530 patients (8.9%) with OAC (no aspirin: N=248, and DAPT: N=282) and 5436 patients (91.1%) without OAC (no aspirin: N=2736, and DAPT: N=2700). Regardless of the use of OAC, the effects of no aspirin compared with DAPT were not significant for the bleeding end point (OAC: 4.45% and 4.27%, hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 [95% CI, 0.46-2.35]; no-OAC: 4.47% and 4.75%, HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.73-1.20]; P for interaction=0.82), and for the cardiovascular end point (OAC: 4.84% and 3.20%, HR, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.64-3.62]; no-OAC: 4.06% and 3.74%, HR, 1.09 [95% CI 0.83-1.42]; P for interaction =0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The no-aspirin strategy compared with the DAPT strategy failed to reduce major bleeding events irrespective of the use of OAC. There was a numerical excess risk of the no-aspirin strategy relative to the DAPT strategy for cardiovascular events in patients with OAC.

CYP2C19 Genetic Testing for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

There is significant variability in the efficacy and safety of oral P2Y12 inhibitors, which are used to prevent ischemic outcomes in common diseases such as coronary and peripheral arterial disease and stroke. Clopidogrel, a prodrug, is the most used oral P2Y12 inhibitor and is activated primarily after being metabolized by a highly polymorphic hepatic cytochrome CYP2C219 enzyme. Loss-of-function genetic variants in CYP2C219 are common, can result in decreased active metabolite levels and increased on-treatment platelet aggregation, and are associated with increased ischemic events on clopidogrel therapy. Such patients can be identified by CYP2C19 genetic testing and can be treated with alternative therapy. Conversely, universal use of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor or prasugrel, which are not dependent on CYP2C19 for activation, has been recommended but can result in increased bleeding. Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that a precision medicine approach in which loss-of-function carriers are prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel and noncarriers are prescribed clopidogrel results in reducing ischemic events without increasing bleeding risk. The evidence to date supports CYP2C19 genetic testing before oral P2Y12 inhibitors are prescribed in patients with acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical implementation of such genetic testing will depend on among multiple factors: rapid availability of results or adoption of the concept of performing preemptive genetic testing, provision of easy-to-understand results with therapeutic recommendations, and seamless integration in the electronic health record.

Impact of Society Guidelines on Trends in Use of Newer P2Y12 Inhibitors for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, major society guidelines have recommended the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. It is unclear what impact these recommendations had on clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: All percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n=534 210) for acute coronary syndrome in England and Wales (April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2022) were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by choice of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine odds ratios of receipt of ticagrelor and prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) over time, and predictors of their receipt. Overall, there was a significant increase in receipt of newer P2Y12 inhibitors from 2010 to 2020 (2022 versus 2010: ticagrelor odds ratio, 8.12 [95% CI, 7.67-8.60]; prasugrel odds ratio, 6.14 [95% CI, 5.53-6.81]), more so in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction than non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome indication. The most significant increase in odds of receipt of prasugrel was observed between 2020 and 2022 (P<0.001), following a decline/plateau in its use in earlier years (2011-2019). In contrast, the odds of receipt of ticagrelor significantly increased in earlier years (2012-2017, Ptrend<0.001), after which the trend was stable (Ptrend=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 13-year-period, there has been a significant increase in use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors, although uptake of prasugrel use remained significantly lower than ticagrelor. Earlier society guidelines (pre-2017) were associated with the highest rates of ticagrelor use for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cases while the ISAR-REACT 5 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial and later society guidelines were associated with higher prasugrel use, mainly for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indication.

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.

An Aspirin-Free Strategy for Immediate Treatment Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There was no study evaluating the effects of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on complex PCI in the STOPDAPT-3 (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3), which randomly compared low-dose prasugrel (3.75 mg/d) monotherapy to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with low-dose prasugrel and aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or a target of chronic total occlusion. The coprimary endpoints were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 5,966 study patients, there were 1,230 patients (20.6%) with complex PCI. Regardless of complex PCI, the effects of no aspirin relative to DAPT were not significant for the coprimary bleeding (complex PCI: 5.30% vs 3.70%; HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18 and noncomplex PCI: 4.26% vs 4.97%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65-1.11; P = 0.24; P for interaction = 0.08) and cardiovascular (complex PCI: 5.78% vs 5.93%; HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.62-1.55; P = 0.92 and noncomplex PCI: 3.70% vs 3.10%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.88-1.63; P = 0.25; P for interaction = 0.48) endpoints without significant interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the aspirin-free strategy relative to standard DAPT for the cardiovascular and major bleeding events were not different regardless of complex PCI. (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3 [STOPDAPT-3]; NCT04609111).

[Antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndrome]. / Antithrombotische Therapie beim akuten Koronarsyndrom.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the cornerstone of maintenance medication following acute coronary syndromes (ST elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, unstable angina). Over the last decade, P2Y12 inhibition in addition to low-dose acetylsalicylic acid has been intensively debated. In patients with acute coronary syndromes, balancing the reduction in cardiovascular events and increase in major bleeding during treatment with more potent P2Y12 inhibitors such as prasugrel and ticagrelor is still an issue. A special focus is on patients already treated with oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation who require additional platelet inhibition following coronary stenting. This article summarizes the major recommendations given in the most recent Guideline for "Acute Coronary Syndromes" published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). The recommendations finally address strategies to reduce an increased bleeding risk based on clinical predictors.

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation　- The REIWA Region-Wide Registry.

BACKGROUND: The safety and feasibility of using 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by P2Y12inhibitor monotherapy for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) in daily clinical practice remain uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: The REIWA region-wide registry is a prospective study conducted in 1 PCI center and 9 local hospitals in northern Japan. A total of 1,202 patients who successfully underwent final PCI using BP-DES (Synergy: n=400; Ultimaster: n=401; Orsiro: n=401), were enrolled in the registry, and received 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12inhibitor (prasugrel 3.75 mg/day or clopidogrel 75 mg/day) monotherapy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular and bleeding events at 12 months, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding. Based on the results of a previous study, we set the performance goal at 5.0%. Over the 1-year follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 3.08% of patients, which was lower than the predefined performance goal (Pnon-inferiority<0.0001). Notably, definite ST occurred in only 1 patient (0.08%) within 1 year (at 258 days). No differences were observed in the primary endpoint between stent types. CONCLUSIONS: The REIWA region-wide registry suggests that 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12inhibitor monotherapy is safe and feasible for Japanese patients with BP-DES.

Prehospital crushed versus integral prasugrel loading dose in STEMI patients with a large myocardial area.

BACKGROUND: The effect of administering a crushed prasugrel loading dose is uncertain in patients presenting with a large myocardial infarction and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate if patients with a large myocardial infarction may benefit from prehospital administration of a crushed prasugrel loading dose. METHODS: Patients from the CompareCrush trial with an available ambulance electrocardiography (ECG) were included in the study. An independent core laboratory confirmed a prehospital large myocardial area. We compared pre- and postprocedural angiographic markers, including Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery, high thrombus burden, and myocardial blush grade 3, in STEMI patients with and without a prehospital large myocardial area. RESULTS: Ambulance ECG was available for 532 patients, of whom 331 patients were identified with a prehospital large myocardial area at risk. Crushed prasugrel significantly improved postprocedural TIMI 3 flow rates in STEMI patients with a prehospital large myocardial area at risk (92% vs 79%, odds ratio [OR] 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.50-6.00) but not in STEMI patients without a prehospital large myocardial area at risk (91% vs 95%, OR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.14-1.57; pinteraction=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of crushed prasugrel may improve postprocedural TIMI 3 flow in STEMI patients with signs of a large myocardial area at risk on the ambulance ECG. The practice of crushing tablets of prasugrel loading dose might, therefore, represent a safe, fast and cost-effective strategy to improve myocardial reperfusion in this high-risk STEMI subgroup undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Low-dose prasugrel versus standard-dose ticagrelor in east Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Low-dose prasugrel demonstrated a similar effectiveness profile to clopidogrel in East Asian ACS patients, but its comparison with another new-generation potent P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, remains unclear. To compare the effectiveness and safety of low-dose prasugrel against those of standard-dose ticagrelor in East Asian patients with ACS. This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health and Welfare Database. This study included ACS patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and, at discharge between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, were prescribed with low-dose prasugrel plus aspirin or standard-dose ticagrelor plus aspirin. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the covariates across these two groups. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death; the secondary effectiveness outcome was each of the individual components of the primary outcome, transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization. The primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding, and the two secondary safety outcomes were intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. A total of 24,807 patients were included in this study. Among them, 1,493 were low-dose prasugrel users and 23,314 were standard-dose ticagrelor users. No significant differences were found in primary effectiveness [HR: 0.97 (0.74-1.28)] or primary safety outcomes [HR: 1.22 (0.73-2.01)] between the two study groups. For East Asian patients with ACS, low-dose prasugrel provides comparable effectiveness without increasing bleeding risk compared to standard-dose ticagrelor. Low-dose prasugrel may be an appropriate alternative for East Asian populations.

Development of a routine bedside CYP2C19 genotype assessment program for antiplatelet therapy guidance in a community hospital catheterization laboratory.

Genotype based personalized antiplatelet therapy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been studied in clinical trials. Despite the demonstrated risk associated with CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LoF) carriage in clopidogrel-treated PCI patients, real-world implementation of genotyping for PCI has been low. The goal of the current study was to provide CYP2C19 genotype information to the interventionalist prior to the completion of the catheterization to facilitate immediate personalized antiplatelet therapy. Routine personalization of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for PCI in a community hospital cardiac catheterization laboratory by POC genotyping with the SpartanRx system was first offered in February 2017. A best practice advisory (BPA) based on the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy was placed in the electronic health record prescription medication ordering system. By December 2019, 1,052 patients had CYP2C19 genotype testing, 429 patients underwent PCI with genotype guided antiplatelet therapy, and 250 patients underwent PCI without genotype testing and received antiplatelet therapy at the discretion of the treating physician. BPA compliance was 93. 87% of LoF allele carriers were prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel whereas 96% of non-LoF allele carriers were prescribed clopidogrel. The genotyping results were available within 1 h and made immediately available for decision making by the interventional cardiologist. POC CYP2C19 genotyping is feasible in a community hospital catheterization laboratory and is associated with high rate of best practice compliance.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03040622.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients of acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Evidence on comparative effectiveness and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor post-percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is scarce in Indian population. In a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort with 71 individuals in each group, the incidence of a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or coronary revascularization was not significantly different in prasugrel and ticagrelor group (7.04% vs 9.86%; absolute difference, 2.8%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.21-2.1; p = 0.49). There was no significant difference in bleeding (5.63% vs 9.86%; absolute difference, -4.20%; 95% CI, -13.0%-4.5%) and dyspnea (7.04% vs 12.7%; absolute difference, -5.60%; 95% CI, -15.4%-4.1%).

Prasugrel Single Antiplatelet Therapy versus Aspirin and Clopidogrel Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Flow Diverter Treatment for Cerebral Aneurysms: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after flow diverter treatment of cerebral aneurysms is still a matter of debate. A single antiplatelet therapy might be advantageous in determined clinical scenarios. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin and clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 4 retrospective multicenter studies including ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with flow diversion using either prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy or dual antiplatelet therapy. Primary end points were the occurrence of any kind of procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications and complete aneurysm occlusion at the latest radiologic follow-up (mean, 18 months). Dichotomized comparisons of outcomes were performed between single antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy. Additionally, the influence of various patient- and aneurysm-related variables on the occurrence of thromboembolic complications was investigated using multivariable backward logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients with 251 aneurysms were included, 90 (40.5%) in the single antiplatelet therapy and 132 (59.5%) in the dual antiplatelet therapy group. The primary outcome-procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications-occurred in 6 patients (6.6%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 12 patients (9.0%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .62; OR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.260-1.930). The primary treatment efficacy end point was reached in 82 patients (80.4%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 115 patients (78.2%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .752; OR, 1.141; 95% CI, 0.599-2.101). Logistic regression showed that non-surface-modified flow diverters (P = .014) and fusiform aneurysm morphology (P = .004) significantly increased the probability of thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy after flow diverter treatment may be as safe and effective as dual antiplatelet therapy and could, therefore, be a valid alternative in selected patients. Further prospective comparative studies are required to validate our findings.

Comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in anemic patients with acute coronary syndrome: efficacy and safety outcomes over one year.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the potential impact of ticagrelor and clopidogrel treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with anemia and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to provide insights into the optimal therapeutic approach for this vulnerable patient population. METHODS: A retrospective research design was employed, involving patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) between 2014 and 2021. Inclusion criteria required a hemoglobin level below 12 mg/dL and a minimum 12-month P2Y12 inhibitor treatment. Comprehensive clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic data were collected from the hospital's electronic repository. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), encompassing total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke. Major hemorrhage was the primary safety endpoint. Secondary outcomes included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke, individually. RESULTS: Patients treated with ticagrelor (n = 118) and clopidogrel (n = 538) were compared. No significant difference was observed in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding between ticagrelor and clopidogrel treatment groups (MACE: clopidogrel 10.0% vs. ticagrelor 11.0%, p = 0.75; major bleeding: clopidogrel 2.8%, ticagrelor 2.5%, p = 0.88). Patients with hemoglobin levels ≤ 8 mg/dL demonstrated significantly higher MACE and major bleeding rates in the ticagrelor group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.002, respectively). Among patients aged ≥ 75 years, ticagrelor treatment was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor and clopidogrel exhibited comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in anemic ACS patients over a one-year period. Although ticagrelor demonstrated superiority in reducing ischemic events, it is crucial to recognize the limitations of retrospective studies in informing clinical practice. This study offers valuable insights into tailoring antiplatelet therapy for anemic ACS patients and provides guidance for personalized treatment strategies, acknowledging the hypothesis-generating nature of retrospective analyses.

De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAPT strategies were included and arms of interest were compared via NMA. Partial ranking of each identified arm and for each investigated endpoint was also performed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search covered several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Science) from inception to 15 October 2023. Medical subject headings and keywords related to ACS, PCI and DAPT interventions were used. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Clinical trials registers were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials. INTERVENTIONS: Six strategies were assessed: T1 arm: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and prasugrel for 12 months; T2 arm: ASA and low-dose prasugrel for 12 months; T3 arm: ASA and ticagrelor for 12 months; T4 arm: DAPT de-escalation (ASA+P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-3 months, then single antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y12 inhibitor or DAPT with clopidogrel); T5 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 12 months; T6 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 3-6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: 23 RCTs (75 064 patients with ACS) were included. No differences in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death, recurrent MI or MACE were found when the six strategies were compared, although with different levels of certainty of evidence. ASA and clopidogrel for 12 or 3-6 months may result in a large increase of ST risk versus ASA plus full-dose prasugrel (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, and OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.26, respectively; low certainty evidence for both comparisons). DAPT de-escalation probably results in a reduced risk of all bleedings compared with ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, moderate-certainty evidence) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75), while it may not increase the risk of ST. ASA plus 12-month clopidogrel may reduce all bleedings versus ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94, low certainty) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: DAPT de-escalation and ASA-clopidogrel regimens may reduce bleeding events compared with 12 months ASA and potent P2Y12 inhibitors. 3-6 months or 12-month aspirin-clopidogrel may increase ST risk compared with 12-month aspirin plus potent P2Y12 inhibitors, while DAPT de-escalation probably does not.

Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome at High Bleeding or Ischemic Risk.

Current guidelines recommend individualizing the choice and duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy based on the trade-off between bleeding and ischemic risk. However, whether a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor) or a less potent one (clopidogrel) is more appropriate in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the setting of high bleeding or ischemic risk is not clear. The study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients with ACS at high bleeding or ischemic risk. A total of 5,713 patients with ACS were included in this retrospective study. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was adjusted by applying the inverse probability weighted approach to reduce treatment selection bias. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital death, ACS, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, or clinically significant or major bleeding. The median follow-up duration was 53.6 months. After multivariable Cox model using an inverse probability weighted approach, all-cause death in the overall population and subgroups of patients at high bleeding risk, and/or at high ischemic risk were not significantly different between clopidogrel and ticagrelor. Rates for secondary outcomes were also similar between the groups. In conclusion, ticagrelor and clopidogrel are associated with comparable clinical outcomes in patients with ACS irrespective of bleeding and ischemic risk.