RESUMO
Background Despite significant evolution in stent technology, female gender, and patients with diabetes mellitus, multivessel disease, total occlusions, long lesions, and small vessels represent the "Achilles' heel" of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a pooled analysis of high-risk subgroup on patient-level data from the T-Flex registry (1,203 patients) and a real-world Indian registry (1,269 patients), with the aim of assessing one-year safety and clinical performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer-coated Supra family of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat, India) in the real-world, all-comer population. Method We pooled the following high-risk subgroups data from two all-comer registries: female gender (n=678), diabetes mellitus (n=852), multivessel disease (n=406), total occlusions (n=420), long lesions (≥28 mm) (n=1241), and small vessels (≤2.5 mm) (n=726). Both the registries included patients with coronary artery disease who underwent implantation of at least one SES belonging to the Supra family of stents from May 2016 until March 2018, irrespective of lesion complexity and comorbidities. The primary endpoint was the inci-dence of target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revas-cularization by percutaneous or surgical methods up to one year. The safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Results According to prespecified high-risk subgroups, one-year rates of TLF and overall stent thrombosis, respectively, were as follows: female gender (4.9% and 0.6%), diabetes mellitus (6.9% and 1.0%), multivessel disease (6.4% and 0.8%), total occlusions (5.2% and 0.5%), long lesions (≥28 mm) (6.6% and 0.8%), and small vessels (≤2.5 mm) (6.1% and 1.3%). Conclusion This present pooled analysis demonstrated the one-year safety and clinical performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer-coated Supra family of SES in a real-world, all-comer population, with considerably low rates of TLF and stent thrombosis.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Prasugrel vs. Clopidogrel in the patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by measuring inhibition of platelet aggregation after loading and maintenance dose of both the drugs. The patients were also assessed for safety of the drugs. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, comparative, multicentric clinical trial in patients with acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina, non-ST elevation MI and ST elevation MI) undergoing PCI. The patients were randomly assigned to receive prasugrel (loading dose of 60 mg followed by maintenance dose of 10-mg once daily) or clopidogrel (loading dose of 300 mg followed by maintenance dose of 75 mg once daily) for a period of 12 weeks. All the patients were co-prescribed aspirin 325 mg with both the drugs. The primary efficacy end point in this study was percentage inhibition of ADP induced platelet aggregation (IPA) at 4 +/- 1 hours after the loading dose and at 30 +/- 3 days during maintenance treatment. The platelet aggregation of both the drugs was measured by whole blood aggregometer using 10 mmol of ADP as an aggregant. Though this study was not powered to see the difference in clinical efficacy parameters, the patients were observed for the incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, re-hospitalization, death, or need for urgent revascularization due to a cardiac ischemic event at days 30 and 90 during the study. The safety of study drugs were evaluated by incidence of major bleeding, reported adverse drug reaction and alterations of any laboratory parameters. RESULT: A total of 220 patients were enrolled at 11 centres across India. Ten patients were given the loading dose of prasugrel or clopidogrel but did not underwent PCI due to change in investigator's decision to go for PCI. Out of 210 eligible patients, 21 patients were discontinued during the study. 157 patients were evaluated for platelet inhibition after loading dose at 4 hours and 150 patients at day 30 during maintenance phase of antiplalelet therapy. The investigators could not perform this test in remaining patients due to urgency and criticality of the patients. 189 patients were observed for the incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, rehospitalisation, urgent revascularisation or death due to a cardiac ischemic event. All eligible patients who received at least a loading dose were evalauted for safety. In prasugrel group, 85 and 77 patients were evaluated for IPA at 4 hours and day 30 respectively whereas in clopdogrel group 72 and 73 patients were tested for IPA at 4 hours and at 30 days. Patients in prasugrel group have demonstrated significantly higher inhibition of platelets as compared to clopidogrel group (82.5% vs 71.1%) at 4 hours and at 30 days (84.1% vs 67.4%). The difference in inhibition of platelets between prasugrel and clopidogrel after loading dose and maintenenace dose was statistically significant (p < or = 0.01). The patients were also evaluated for drug hyporesponsiveness to antiplatelet therapy if IPA was < 20% at day 30 from the baseline. More patients on prasugrel have shown response to antiplatlet therapy than on clopidogrel (97.4% vs 87.6%). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was no difference observed during the study in the incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, death, rehospitalisation or need for urgent revascularisation due to a cardiac event between prasugrel and clopidogrel. Both the drugs were found to be to be well tolerated and have comparable safety profile. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that prasugrel is more effective than clopidogrel as an anti platelet drug as evident by inhibition of platelet aggregation. More patients on clopidogrel are likely to have poor response to therapy as compared to prasugrel. Both the drugs were well tolerated and have comparable safety profile.
