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.

European practices on antithrombotic management during percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in adults: A survey of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) of the ESC and the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (EuroELSO).

BACKGROUND: Bleeding and thrombotic complications compromise outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) and/or microaxial flow pumps like the Impella™. Antithrombotic practices are an important determinant of the coagulopathic risk, but standardization in the antithrombotic management during pMCS is lacking. This survey outlines European practices in antithrombotic management in adults on pMCS, making an initial effort to standardize practices, inform future trials, and enhance outcomes. METHODS: This online cross-sectional survey was distributed through digital newsletters and social media platforms by the Association of Acute Cardiovascular Care and the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. The survey was available from April 17th to May 23rd, 2023. The target population were European clinicians involved in care for adults on pMCS. RESULTS: We included 105 responses from 26 European countries. Notably, 72.4% of the respondents adhered to locally established anticoagulation protocols, with unfractionated heparin (UFH) being the predominant anticoagulant (Impella™: 97.0% and V-A ECMO: 96.1%). A minority, 10.8% and 14.5%, respectively, utilized anti-factor-Xa assay with activated partial thromboplastin time in parallel for UFH monitoring during Impella™ and V-A ECMO support. Anticoagulant targets varied across institutions. Following acute coronary syndrome without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 54.0% and 42.7% administered dual antiplatelet therapy during Impella™ and V-A ECMO support, increasing to 93.7% and 84.0% after PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial heterogeneity in antithrombotic practices emerged from participants' responses, potentially contributing to variable device-associated bleeding and thrombotic complications.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: similarities and differences between a European expert consensus document and the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients.

1- Versus 3-Month DAPT in Older Patients at a High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: Insights from the XIENCE Short DAPT Global Program.

This analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of 1- versus 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in older patients. Data from 3 prospective, single-arm studies (XIENCE Short DAPT Program), including patients with high bleeding risk successfully treated with an everolimus-eluting stent (XIENCE, Abbott) were analyzed. DAPT was discontinued at 1 or at 3 months in patients free from ischemic events and adherent to DAPT. Patients were stratified according to age (≥75 and <75 years). The primary end point was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). The key secondary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5 bleeding. The outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after index PCI. Of 3,364 patients, 2,241 (66.6%) were aged ≥75 years. The risk of death or MI was similar with 1- versus 3-month DAPT in patients aged ≥75 (8.5% vs 8.0%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 1.30) and <75 years (6.9% vs 7.8%, adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57, interaction p = 0.478). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5 bleeding was consistently lower with 1- than with 3-month DAPT in patients aged ≥75 years (7.2% vs 9.4%, adjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91) and <75 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29, interaction p = 0.737). In conclusion, in patients at high bleeding risk who underwent PCI, patients older and younger than 75 years derived a consistent benefit from 1- compared with 3-month DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction, with no increase in all-cause death or MI at 1 year.

Edoxaban and/or colchicine in outpatients with COVID-19: rationale and design of the CONVINCE trial.

BACKGROUND: An excessive inflammatory response and a hypercoagulable state are not infrequent in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. However, the optimal treatment strategy for COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting is still uncertain. DESIGN: The CONVINCE (NCT04516941) is an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded-endpoint, 2 × 2 factorial design randomized trial aimed at assessing two independently tested hypotheses (anticoagulation and anti-inflammatory ones) in COVID-19 patients. Adult symptomatic patients (≥18 years of age) within 7 days from reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection managed at home or in nursery settings were considered for eligibility. Eligible patients fulfilling all inclusion and no exclusion criteria were randomized to edoxaban versus no treatment (anticoagulation hypothesis) and colchicine versus no treatment (anti-inflammatory hypothesis) in a 1 : 1:1 : 1 ratio. The study had two co-primary endpoints (one for each randomization), including the composite of major vascular thrombotic events at 25 ±â€Š3 days for the anticoagulation hypothesis and the composite of SARS-CoV-2 detection rates at 14 ±â€Š3 days by RT-PCR or freedom from death or hospitalizations (anti-inflammatory hypothesis). Study endpoints will be adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee. With a final sample size of 420 patients, this study projects an 80% power for each of the two primary endpoints appraised separately. CONCLUSION: The CONVINCE trial aims at determining whether targeting anticoagulation and/or anti-inflammatory pathways may confer benefit in COVID-19 patients managed in the out-of-hospital setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516941.

Coronary calcification in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the MATRIX trial.

AIMS: The role of coronary calcification on clinical outcomes among different revascularization strategies in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) has been rarely investigated. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the role of coronary calcification, detected by coronary angiography, in the whole spectrum of patients presenting with acute ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study was a post hoc analysis of the MATRIX programme. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke up to 365 days. Among the 8404 patients randomized in the MATRIX trial, data about coronary calcification were available in 7446 (88.6%) and therefore were included in this post hoc analysis. Overall, 875 patients (11.7%) presented with severe coronary calcification, while 6571 patients (88.3%) did not present severe coronary calcification on coronary angiography. Fewer patients with severe coronary calcification underwent percutaneous coronary intervention whereas coronary artery bypass grafting or medical therapy-only was more frequent compared with patients without severe calcification. At 1-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 237 (27.1%) patients with severe calcified coronary lesions and 985 (15%) patients without severe coronary calcified lesions [hazard ratio (HR) 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-2.20, P < 0.001]. All-cause mortality was 8.6% in patients presenting with and 3.7% in those without severe coronary calcification (HR 2.38, 1.84-3.09, P < 0.001). Patients with severe coronary calcification incurred higher rate of MI (20.1% vs. 11.5%, HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.1, P < 0.001) and similar rate of stroke (0.8% vs. 0.6%, HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.61-3.02, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Patients with ACS and severe coronary calcification, as compared to those without, are associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the management strategy.

1- or 3-Month DAPT in Patients With HBR With or Without Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After PCI.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to assess the effects of 1- vs 3-month DAPT in patients with and those without concomitant OAC included in the XIENCE Short DAPT program. METHODS: The XIENCE Short DAPT program enrolled patients with high bleeding risk who underwent successful PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. DAPT was discontinued at 1 or 3 months in patients free from ischemic events and adherent to treatment. The effect of 1- vs 3-month DAPT was compared in patients with and those without OAC using propensity score stratification. The primary endpoint was all-cause death or any myocardial infarction (MI). The key secondary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed from 1 to 12 months after index PCI. RESULTS: Among 3,364 event-free patients, 1,462 (43%) were on OAC. Among OAC patients, the risk for death or MI was similar between 1- and 3-month DAPT (7.4% vs 8.8%; adjusted HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.11; P = 0.139), whereas BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding was lower with 1-month DAPT (adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.51-0.99; P = 0.046). These effects were consistent in patients with and those without OAC (P for interaction = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1 and 12 months after PCI, 1-month compared with 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of all-cause death or MI and a reduced rate of BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding, irrespective of OAC treatment.

Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Assess Treatment Effects: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

A time-to-first-event composite endpoint analysis has well-known shortcomings in evaluating a treatment effect in cardiovascular clinical trials. It does not fully describe the clinical benefit of therapy because the severity of the events, events repeated over time, and clinically relevant nonsurvival outcomes cannot be considered. The generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method adds flexibility in defining the primary endpoint by including any number and type of outcomes that best capture the clinical benefit of a therapy as compared with standard of care. Clinically important outcomes, including bleeding severity, number of interventions, and quality of life, can easily be integrated in a single analysis. The treatment effect in GPC can be expressed by the net treatment benefit, the success odds, or the win ratio. This review provides guidance on the use of GPC and the choice of treatment effect measures for the analysis and reporting of cardiovascular trials.