Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding. Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Who Have Undergone Revascularization Within the Past Year: Which Agents and for How Long?

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is recommended for at least 6 and 12 months following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and acute coronary syndrome, respectively. Additional exposure to antiplatelet therapy reduces ischemic events but also increases bleeding risk. Conversely, shorter durations of DAPT are preferred among those at high bleeding risk. Hence, decisions surrounding duration of DAPT after revascularization should include clinical judgment, assessment of the risk of bleeding and ischemic events, and time after revascularization.

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Prognostic impact of peripheral artery disease in patients with and without high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic impact of PAD according to high bleeding risk (HBR) status. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent implantation at a tertiary-care center (Mount Sinai Hospital) between 2012 and 2019 were stratified according to HBR and PAD status. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke 1 year after PCI. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding. RESULTS: Out of 16,750 patients, 43% were HBR and 57% were no-HBR. Within the two groups, PAD patients were 14% and 6%, respectively, and were more likely to have comorbidities and to undergo complex PCI than no-PAD patients. Within the HBR group, PAD was associated with an increased risk of MACE (11.4% vs. 7.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.27-1.99, p < 0.001) and a numerical nonsignificant increase of major bleeding (8.5% vs. 6.9%, HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.98-1.59, p = 0.066) as compared with no-PAD. Among no-HBR patients, rates of MACE and major bleeding were numerically but not significantly higher in the PAD group. After multivariable adjustment, PAD was no longer a predictor of adverse outcomes, irrespective of HBR status. CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year after PCI, PAD was associated with increased 1-year risks of MACE in HBR patients. After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, the effect of PAD on adverse events was largely attenuated.

Prognostic impact of in-stent restenosis in normal weight, overweight, and obese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in-stent restenosis (ISR) is related with a worse prognosis, while higher body mass index (BMI) values are associated with better outcomes. It is unclear whether the prognostic impact of ISR varies in function of BMI. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCI at a large center from 2012 to 2019 not presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) were included. Subjects with BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 or treated with bare metal stents were excluded. Patients were stratified according to type of lesion treated (ISR vs. no-ISR) and into four BMI categories: normal weight (BMI 18.5-25 kg/m2 ), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2 ), class I obesity (30.0-34.9 kg/m2 ), class II-III obesity (≥35.0 kg/m2 ). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS: Out of 16,234 patients, 3694 (23%) underwent PCI for ISR. ISR as compared to no-ISR was associated with a consistent increased risk of MACE within the normal weight (18.8% vs. 7.8%, adj. hazard ratio (HR): 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-2.64), overweight (19.1% vs. 6.4%, adj. HR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.91-2.88), class I obesity (18.3% vs. 6.8%, adj. HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.47-2.57), and class II-III obesity (16.4% vs. 7.4%, adj. HR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.09-2.37) groups (interaction p-value: 0.192). The ISR-related risks were mostly driven by an excess of TVR. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, ISR was associated with an increased risk of MACE irrespective of BMI, mostly due to an excess of TVR after ISR.

Predictive value of the thrombotic risk criteria proposed in the 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of ACS: insights from a large PCI registry.

AIM: To assess the value of the thrombotic risk criteria proposed in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to predict the ischaemic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome undergoing PCI at a large tertiary-care center from 2014 to 2019 were included. Patients were stratified into low, moderate, or high thrombotic risk based on the ESC criteria. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at 1 year, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Secondary endpoints included major bleeding. Among 11 787 patients, 2641 (22.4%) were at low-risk, 5286 (44.8%) at moderate risk, and 3860 (32.7%) at high-risk. There was an incremental risk of MACE at 1 year in patients at moderate (hazard ratios (HR) 2.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.78-3.58) and high-risk (HR 3.39, 95% CI 2.39-4.80) as compared to those at low-risk, due to higher rates of all-cause death and MI. Major bleeding rates were increased in high-risk patients (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25-2.02), but similar between the moderate and low-risk group. The Harrell's C-index for MACE was 0.60. CONCLUSION: The thrombotic risk criteria of the 2023 ESC guidelines for ACS enable to stratify patients undergoing PCI in categories with an incremental 1 year risk of MACE; however, their overall predictive ability for MACE is modest. Future studies should confirm the value of these criteria to identify patients benefiting from an extended treatment with a second antithrombotic agent.

Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of TWILIGHT and TICO Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor coupled with aspirin for 1 year is the recommended treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As an alternative, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials that included patients with ACS undergoing PCI treated with an initial 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor monotherapy versus continued ticagrelor plus aspirin. Patients sustaining a major ischemic or bleeding event in the first 3 months after PCI were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurring between 3 and 12 months after index PCI. The key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression with a one-stage approach in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The pooled cohort (n=7529) had a mean age of 62.8 years, 23.2% were female, and 55% presented with biomarker-positive ACS. Between 3 and 12 months, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (0.8% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.24-0.56]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between groups (2.4% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68-1.21]; P=0.515). Findings were unchanged among patients presenting with biomarker-positive ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have completed a 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy, discontinuation of aspirin followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced major bleeding without incremental ischemic risk compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42023449646.

Intravascular imaging guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the absolute treatment effects of intravascular imaging guided versus angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, considering their baseline risk. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to 31 August 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing intravascular imaging (intravascular ultrasonography or optical coherence tomography) guided versus coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention in adults with coronary artery disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Random effect meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) were used to assess certainty of evidence. Data included rate ratios and absolute risks per 1000 people for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization. Absolute risk differences were estimated using SYNTAX risk categories for baseline risks at five years, assuming constant rate ratios across different cardiovascular risk thresholds. RESULTS: In 20 randomized controlled trials (n=11 698), intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of cardiac death (rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.72), myocardial infarction (0.81, 0.68 to 0.97), stent thrombosis (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72), target vessel revascularization (0.74, 0.61 to 0.89), and target lesion revascularization (0.71, 0.59 to 0.86) but not all cause death (0.81, 0.64 to 1.02). Using SYNTAX risk categories, high certainty evidence showed that from low risk to high risk, intravascular imaging was likely associated with 23 to 64 fewer cardiac deaths, 15 to 19 fewer myocardial infarctions, 9 to 13 fewer stent thrombosis events, 28 to 38 fewer target vessel revascularization events, and 35 to 48 fewer target lesion revascularization events per 1000 people. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with coronary angiography guided percutaneous coronary intervention, intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with significantly reduced cardiac death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. The estimated absolute effects of intravascular imaging guided percutaneous coronary intervention showed a proportional relation with baseline risk, driven by the severity and complexity of coronary artery disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023433568.

Dyspnea-Related Ticagrelor Discontinuation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 20% of patients on ticagrelor experience dyspnea, which may lead to treatment discontinuation in up to one-third of cases. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The occurrence of dyspnea associated with ticagrelor discontinuation was evaluated among all patients enrolled in the trial. A landmark analysis was performed at 3 months after PCI, that is, the time of randomization. Predictors of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation were obtained from multivariable Cox regression with stepwise selection of candidate variables. RESULTS: The incidence of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation was 6.4% and 9.1% at 3 and 15 months after PCI, respectively. Independent predictors included Asian race (lower risk), smoking, prior PCI, hypercholesterolemia, prior coronary artery bypass, peripheral artery disease, obesity, and older age. Among 179 patients who discontinued ticagrelor because of dyspnea after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of subsequent ischemic events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (5.0% vs 7.1%; P = 0.566). CONCLUSIONS: In the TWILIGHT trial, dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation occurred in almost 1 in 10 patients and tended to occur earlier rather than late after PCI. Several demographic and clinical conditions predicted its occurrence, and their assessment may help identify subjects at risk for therapy nonadherence.

Clinically Driven Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial.

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12 months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p = 0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p = 0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p = 0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242).

Novel usage of everolimus-eluting coronary stent for intracranial atherosclerotic disease: a technical report and case series.

Objectives: This report describes the use of an Everolimus-eluting stent (Xience Skypoint stent) for the treatment of medically-refractory ICAD. Design: Retrospective, case-series. Setting: In-hospital patients. Participants: All patients in this report had a history of stroke secondary to ICAD. All patients failed aggressive medical treatments and had recurrence of symptoms despite anticoagulation or dual-antiplatelet therapy plus a statin. Diagnostic angiogram in each case showed severe vessel stenosis, therefore patients were recommended for intracranial artery stenting. Main outcome measures: Technical feasibility of deploying Xience Skypoint stent for treatmet of ICAD. Results: The Xience Skypoint stent was safely and effectively deployed in the vertebral artery (x1) and the internal carotid artery (x2) using trans-ulnar (x1), trans-radial (x1), and trans-femoral (x1) approaches without the use of an intermediate catheter. Conclusion: Second-generation EES such as Xience Skypoint may be utilized for treatment of medically-refractory ICAD. This technical report serves as a proof of concept for further studies analysing long-term safety and efficacy of such stents for treatment of ICAD.

Practical solutions for implementation of blood cholesterol guidelines in clinical practice.

Underutilization of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and failure to attain guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals are important quality gaps in cardiovascular risk optimization, especially among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Large database analyses demonstrate an unmet need for improved LDL-C measurement, and that nearly 75% of patients with ASCVD have an LDL-C level above guideline-recommended levels, and greater than 50% are not treated with statins or ezetimibe. Proposed solutions for overcoming these obstacles to optimal lipid management include provider- and patient-facing educational interventions, health information technology strategies, implementation of incentive-based care, advocacy efforts, and systems-based process innovations. While individual interventions may not be enough to overcome the totality of barriers to optimal LLT, comprehensive multifaceted approaches that address barriers at the provider, patient, and healthcare delivery level are likely to offer the greatest likelihood of success and improved patient outcomes.

Bleeding and Ischemic Risks of Ticagrelor Monotherapy After Coronary Interventions.

BACKGROUND: In TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention), among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), ticagrelor monotherapy vs continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor after completing a 3-month course of DAPT was associated with reduced bleeding, without an increase in ischemic events. OBJECTIVES: This investigation sought to study the clinical benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy vs DAPT by simultaneously modeling its associated potential bleeding benefits and ischemic harms on an individual patient basis. METHODS: Multivariable Cox regression models for: 1) Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 (BARC-2/3/5); and 2) cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE]) were developed using stepwise forward variable selection. The coefficients in the BARC-2/3/5 and MACCE models were used to calculate bleeding and ischemic risk scores, respectively, for each patient (excluding the coefficient for randomized treatment). RESULTS: In the total study group (N = 7,119), BARC-2/3/5 occurred in 391 (5.5%) patients, and MACCE occurred in 258 (3.6%). There was a consistent reduction in bleeding events associated with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT across both bleeding and ischemic risk strata (P interaction = 0.54 and 0.11, respectively). Importantly, this benefit associated with ticagrelor monotherapy was not offset by an increase in MACCE at any level of bleeding or ischemic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Three months after PCI, discontinuing aspirin and maintaining ticagrelor monotherapy reduces bleeding in both higher-bleeding risk and lower-bleeding risk patients compared with continued DAPT. This benefit does not appear to be offset by greater ischemic risk. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242).

Thrombotic risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes discharged on prasugrel or clopidogrel: results from the PROMETHEUS study.

AIMS: Based on recent clinical data, the 2020 ESC guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) suggest to tailor antithrombotic strategy on individual thrombotic risk. Nonetheless, prevalence and prognostic impact of the high thrombotic risk (HTR) criteria proposed are yet to be described. In this analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry, we assessed prevalence and prognostic impact of HTR, defined according to the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, and if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel vary with thrombotic risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: PROMETHEUS was a multicentre prospective study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were at HTR if presenting with one clinical plus one procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization, at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with propensity score stratification and multivariable Cox regression. Among 16 065 patients, 4293 (26.7%) were at HTR and 11 772 (73.3%) at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. The HTR conferred increased incidence of MACE (23.3 vs. 13.6%, HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71-2.00, P < 0.001) and its single components. Prasugrel was prescribed in patients with less comorbidities and risk factors and was associated with reduced risk of MACE (HTR: adjHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02; low-to-moderate risk: adjHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88; pinteraction = 0.32). CONCLUSION: High thrombotic risk, as defined by the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, is highly prevalent among ACS patients undergoing PCI. The HTR definition had a strong prognostic impact, as it successfully identified patients at increased 1 year risk of ischaemic events.