Optimizing post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dyslipidemia management: Insights from the North American Acute Coronary Syndrome ACS Reflective III.

BACKGROUND: Despite contemporary practice guidelines, a substantial number of post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients fail to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. Our study aims to objectively investigate this evidence-to-practice care gap. Specifically, we aim to identify opportunities where additional lipid-lowering therapies are indicated and explore reasons for the non-prescription of guideline-recommended therapies. METHODS: ACS patients with LDL-C ≥1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) despite maximally tolerated statin ± ezetimibe therapy (including those intolerant of ≥2 statins) were enrolled 1-12 months post-event from 27 Canadian and United States (U.S.) sites from September 2018 to October 2020 and followed up for three visits during the 12 months post-event. We determined the proportion of patients who did not achieve Canadian/U.S. guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds, the number of patients who would have been eligible for additional lipid-lowering therapies, and reasons behind lack of escalation in lipid-lowering therapies when indicated. Individual patient and aggregate practice feedback, including guideline-recommended intensification suggestions were provided to each physician. RESULTS: Of the 248 patients enrolled in the pilot study (median age 64 [57, 73] years, 31.5% ¬¬¬¬-female and STEMI 27.4%), 75.4% were on high-intensity statins on the first visit. 18.5% of those who attended all 3 visits had an LDL-C measured only at the first visit which was above the threshold. After one year of follow-up, 51.9% of patients achieved LDL-C thresholds at either visit 2 or 3. In the context of feedback reminding physicians about guideline-directed LDL-C-modifying therapy in their individual participating patients, we observed an increase in the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitor therapy at 3-12 months. This was associated with a significant lowering of the mean LDL-C (from 2.93 mmol/L [baseline] to 2.09 mmol/L [3-6 months] to 1.87 mmol/L [6-12 months]) and a significantly greater proportion of patients (from 0% [baseline] to 38.6% [3-6 months] to 53.4% [6-12 months]) achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds. The most prevalent reasons behind the non-intensification of LDL-C lowering therapy with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9i were LDL-C levels being close to target, the pre-existing use of other lipid-lowering therapies, patient refusal, and cost. CONCLUSION: Although most patients post-ACS are on high-intensity statin therapy, almost 50% failed to achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C thresholds by 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, additional lipid-lowering therapies in this high-risk group were underprescribed, and this may be linked to several factors including potential gaps in physician knowledge, treatment inertia, patient refusal, and cost.

Antithrombotic therapies in Canadian atrial fibrillation patients with concomitant coronary artery disease: Insights from the CONNECT AF + PCI-II program.

BACKGROUND: Selecting the appropriate antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or have had medically managed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains complex. This multi-centre observational study evaluated patterns of antithrombotic therapies utilized among Canadian patients with AF post-PCI or ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: By retrospective chart audit, 611 non-valvular AF patients [median (interquartile range) age 76 (69-83) years, CHADS2 score 2 (1-3)] who underwent PCI or had medically managed ACS between August 2018 and December 2020 were identified by 68 cardiologists across eight provinces in Canada. Overall, triple antithrombotic therapy [TAT: combined oral anticoagulation (OAC) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)] was the most common initial antithrombotic strategy, with use in 53.8 % of patients, followed by dual pathway therapy (32.7 % received OAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor, and 4.1 % received OAC and aspirin) and DAPT (9.3 %). Median duration of TAT was 30 (7, 30) days. Compared to the previous CONNECT AF + PCI-I program, there was an increased use of dual pathway therapy relative to TAT over time (P-value <.0001). DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants) represented 90.3 % of all OACs used overall, with apixaban being the most utilized (50.5 %). Proton pump inhibitors were used in 57.0 % of all patients, and 70.1 % of patients on ASA. Planned antithrombotic therapies at 1 year were: 76.2 % OAC monotherapy, 8.3 % OAC + ASA, 7.9 % OAC + P2Y12 inhibitor, 4.3 % DAPT, 1.3 % ASA alone, and <1 % triple therapy. CONCLUSION: In accordance with recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline recommendations, we observed an increased use of dual pathway therapy relative to TAT over time in both AF patients post-PCI (elective and emergent) and in those with medically managed ACS. Additionally, DOACs have become the prevailing form of anticoagulation across all antithrombotic regimens. Our findings suggest that Canadian physicians are integrating evidence-based approaches to optimally manage the bleeding and thrombotic risks of AF patients post-PCI and/or ACS.