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.

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.

Long-term outcomes of high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a Korean nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at increased risk of not only bleeding, but also ischaemic events. This study aimed to determine the long-term relative risk of ischaemic and bleeding events in HBR patients. METHODS: This study was a nationwide cohort study, based on the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. Patients diagnosed with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome and those who underwent PCI in Korea between 2009 and 2018 were included in the analysis. According to the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, the total population was divided into HBR and non-HBR groups. The co-primary outcomes were major bleeding events and ischaemic (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke) events. RESULTS: Among a total of 325 417 patients who underwent PCI, 66 426 patients (20.4%) had HBR. During the follow-up period, HBR patients had a higher risk for major bleeding events (23.9% vs. 8.9%, P < .001) and ischaemic events (33.8% vs. 14.4%, P < .001). However, the impact of HBR was significant for major bleeding events [hazard ratio (HR) 3.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.04-3.21, P < .001] and for ischaemic events (HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.45-2.56, P < .001). The HBR group was also associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality (HR 3.73, 95% CI 3.66-3.79, P < .001). The average annual rate of major bleeding events within the first year after PCI was 5.5% for a single major criterion, and 2.9% for a single minor criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, those with HBR were at increased long-term risk for both bleeding and ischaemic events, with a greater risk of mortality compared to non-HBR patients.

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.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy: Considerations for Acute and Long-Term Secondary Prevention Post-PCI.

Following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), an initial course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor ( P2Y 12 -i) is recommended to minimize the risk of thrombotic complications. After the initial period of DAPT, antiplatelet monotherapy, usually consisting of aspirin, is administered for long-term secondary prevention. However, over the last few years there has been accruing evidence on P2Y 12 -i monotherapy, both in the acute (i.e., post-PCI; after a brief period of DAPT, transitioning to monotherapy before six or 12 months in patients with chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively) and chronic (i.e., long-term secondary prevention; after completion of six or 12 months of DAPT, in patients with chronic or acute coronary syndrome, respectively) settings. In aggregate, most studies of short DAPT with transition to P2Y 12 -i monotherapy showed a reduced risk of bleeding complications, without any significant increase in ischemic events as compared to standard DAPT. On the other hand, the evidence on long-term P2Y 12 -i monotherapy is scarce, but results from a randomized trial showed that clopidogrel monotherapy outperformed aspirin monotherapy in terms of net benefit, ischemic events and bleeding. Antiplatelet therapy is also recommended for patients undergoing PCI and with an established indication for long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this scenario, a brief period of triple therapy (i.e., aspirin, P2Y 12 -i and OAC) is followed by a course of dual antithrombotic therapy (usually with P2Y 12 -i and OAC) and ultimately by lifelong OAC alone. European and American guidelines have been recently updated to provide new recommendations on antithrombotic therapy, including the endorsement of P2Y 12 -i monotherapy in different settings. However, some areas of uncertainty still remain and further randomized investigations are ongoing to fulfil current gaps in knowledge. In this review, we assess the current knowledge and evidence on P2Y 12 -i monotherapy for the early and long-term secondary prevention in patients undergoing PCI, and explore upcoming research and future directions in the field.

Current Status and Future Direction of Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients with STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI.

Since the introduction of the first pharmacological therapy for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in the early 20th century, treatment of myocardial infarction has evolved extensively throughout the years. Mechanical revascularization therapies such as the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, combined with the ongoing development of pharmacological therapies have successfully improved the survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction. To date, antiplatelet therapy (consisting of aspirin and an oral P2Y 12 inhibitor) and anticoagulation therapy represent the main stay of pharmacological treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The routine use of clopidogrel as antiplatelet agent has been largely replaced by the use of the more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors ticagrelor and prasugrel. Unfractionated heparin remains the preferred anticoagulant therapy, despite the development of other anticoagulants, including enoxaparin and bivalirudin. To date, limited evidence exists supporting a pre-hospital initiation of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in STEMI patients. The use of potent intravenous antiplatelet agents, including the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and the intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor cangrelor, is currently restricted to specific clinical settings. While several potent antithrombotic agents already exist, the search for novel potent antithrombotic agents continues, with a focus on balancing antithrombotic properties with an improved safety profile to reduce excess bleeding. This review provides an overview of currently available pharmacological therapies for the treatment of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, and an outlook for the ongoing development of novel agents in this field.

The pharmacology of antiplatelet agents for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of ischemic stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic etiology accounts for two thirds of all strokes in which platelet activation and aggregation play a major role. A variety of antiplatelet therapies have been tested for primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention, with certain patient subtypes benefiting more than others from a specific regimen. AREAS COVERED: This review aims at synthetizing current evidence on pharmacology of antiplatelet agents approved for primary, secondary, and tertiary stroke prevention and their application among possible patient subtypes that may benefit more from their administration. EXPERT OPINION: Management of ischemic stroke has largely evolved over the past decades. A better understanding of stroke pathophysiology has allowed to identify patients who can benefit most from antiplatelet therapies, with varying degrees of benefit depending on whether these agents are being used for primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention. Importantly, the antiplatelet treatment regimens currently available have expanded and no longer limited to aspirin but include other drugs such as P2Y12 and phosphodiesterase inhibitors, also used in combination, as well as precision medicine approaches using genetic testing aiming at optimizing the safety and efficacy in this population.

Antiplatelet De-Escalation Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Dual antiplatelet therapy-the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor-remains the standard antiplatelet regimen recommended to prevent ischemic complications immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention. Nonetheless, recent advances in stent technologies, percutaneous coronary intervention techniques, adjunctive pharmacotherapy for secondary prevention, and the rising awareness of the prognostic impact of bleeding, which are inevitably associated with dual antiplatelet therapy, led to the investigation of alternative antiplatelet regimens related to fewer bleeding and a preserved ischemic protection. Thrombotic complications occur mostly in the first months after percutaneous coronary intervention, while the risk of bleeding remains stable over time; this observation laid the foundation of the concept of antiplatelet de-escalation, consisting of a more intense antiplatelet regimen early after percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by a less potent antiplatelet therapy thereafter. According to new definitions proposed by the Academic Research Consortium, de-escalation can be achieved by discontinuation of 1 antiplatelet agent, switching from a potent P2Y12 inhibitor to clopidogrel, or by reducing the dose of antiplatelet agents. This review discusses the rationale and the evidence supporting antiplatelet de-escalation, provides practical guidance to use these new regimens, and gives insights into future developments in the field.

Antithrombotic therapy for transcatheter structural heart intervention.

Percutaneous transcatheter structural heart interventions have considerably expanded within the last two decades, improving clinical outcomes and quality of life versus guideline-directed medical therapy for patients frequently ineligible for surgical treatment. Transcatheter structural heart interventions comprise valve implantation or repair and also occlusions of the patent foramen ovale, atrial septal defects and left atrial appendage. These procedures expose structural devices to arterial or venous blood flow with various rheological conditions leading to potential thrombotic complications and embolisation. Furthermore, these procedures may concern comorbid patients at high risk of both ischaemic and bleeding complications. This state-of-the-art review provides a description of the device-related thrombotic risk associated with these transcatheter structural heart interventions and of the current evidence-based guidelines regarding antithrombotic treatments. Gaps in evidence for each of the studied transcatheter interventions and the main ongoing trials are also summarised.

Stratified medicine for acute and chronic coronary syndromes: A patient-tailored approach.

The traditional approach to management of cardiovascular disease relies on grouping clinical presentations with common signs and symptoms into pre-specified disease pathways, all uniformly treated according to evidence-based guidelines ("one-size-fits-all"). The goal of precision medicine is to provide the right treatment to the right patients at the right time, combining data from time honoured sources (e.g., history, physical examination, imaging, laboratory) and those provided by multi-omics technologies. In patients with ischemic heart disease, biomarkers and intravascular assessment can be used to identify endotypes with different pathophysiology who may benefit from distinct treatments. This review discusses strategies for the application of stratified management to patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes.

Therapeutic Potential of FXI Inhibitors: Hype or Hope?

Significant advancements have shaped the landscape of anticoagulant therapy in the past two decades, including the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), characterized by favorable safety and efficacy profiles and reduced drug-to-drug or food interaction resulting in excellent patient compliance. However, residual concerns still exist with standard-of-care anticoagulant therapy, including the inability to use DOACs in several clinical settings and the need to further reduce the risk of bleeding. Recent improvements in the understanding of the mechanisms behind thrombus formation have led to the awareness that the intrinsic pathway of the coagulation cascade may play an important role in pathological thrombosis, but not in hemostasis. This has represented the rationale for targeting this pathway with factor XI (FXI) inhibitors, with the aim of uncoupling hemostasis and thrombosis. Clinical evidence from patients with FXI deficiency further supports this concept. A number of compounds with different mechanisms of action have been developed to target FXI (i.e., asundexian, abelacimab, Ionis-FXIRx, milvexian, osocimab, and Xisomab 3G). To date, the majority of available trials have not gone beyond completion of phase 2 and results are conflictive making it difficult to appraise the clinical benefit of these compounds in the different clinical settings where they have been tested (i.e., atrial fibrillation, acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, end-stage renal disease, total knee arthroplasty). Moreover, the largest phase 3 randomized trial designed to test the efficacy of asundexian over apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation, the OCEANIC-AF, has been prematurely stopped as a result of the inferior efficacy of asundexian. In this review we discuss the pharmacological properties and available evidence generated thus far for factor XI inhibitors, providing a perspective on the current state of these drugs.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Short DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may balance ischemic and bleeding risks in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it remains uncertain how different P2Y12 inhibitors used as monotherapy affect outcomes. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of DAPT (≤3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in ACS were included. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All analyses included an interaction term for the P2Y12 inhibitor used as monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis were run to explore whether the effect estimate of each outcomes may be affected by further studies. RESULTS: Seven trials encompassing 27,284 ACS patients were included. Compared with 12-month DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of DAPT was associated with no difference in MACE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12) and a significant reduction in net adverse clinical events (NACE) (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.94), any bleeding (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43-0.66) and major bleeding (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37-0.60). Significant interactions for subgroup difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel monotherapy were found for MACE (pint=0.016), all-cause death (pint=0.042), NACE (pint=0.018), and myocardial infarction (pint=0.028). Trial sequential analysis showed conclusive evidence of improved NACE with ticagrelor, but not with clopidogrel monotherapy, compared with standard DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short DAPT halves bleeding without increasing ischemic events compared with standard DAPT. Ticagrelor, but not clopidogrel monotherapy, reduced MACE, NACE and mortality compared with standard DAPT, supporting its use after aspirin discontinuation. Protocol registration: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023494797).

One-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled ODIN trial.

The optimal antiplatelet strategy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. Adding the P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, to low-dose aspirin for 1 year is associated with a reduction in graft failure, particularly saphenous vein grafts, at the expense of an increased risk of clinically important bleeding. As the risk of thrombotic graft failure and ischaemic events is highest early after CABG surgery, a better risk-to-benefit profile may be attained with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients (ODIN) trial is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study of 700 subjects that will evaluate the effect of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus low-dose aspirin after CABG in patients with CCS. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matching placebo, in addition to aspirin 75-150 mg once daily for 1 month; after the first month, antiplatelet therapy will be continued with aspirin alone. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year. The key secondary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 bleeding, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year (net clinical benefit). ODIN will report whether the addition of ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin for 1 month after CABG reduces ischaemic events and provides a net clinical benefit in patients with CCS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05997693).

Inflammation and platelet reactivity during adjunctive colchicine versus aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitor.

Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the use of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine is associated with a reduction of recurrent ischemic events. The mechanisms of such findings are not fully elucidated. Objectives: To investigate the effects of colchicine versus aspirin on inflammation and platelet reactivity in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Methods: This observational study compared laboratory measurements in ACS patients receiving single antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel plus colchicine (MACT) (n = 185) versus conventional dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel (n = 497). The primary outcome was the frequency of high residual inflammation, defined as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) ≥2 mg/L at 1 month post-PCI. Multiple sensitivity analyses were performed for the primary outcome, including multivariable adjustment, propensity-score matching, and inverse-probability weighted methods. Results: One month after PCI, patients treated with MACT had significantly lower levels of hs-CRP compared to those treated with DAPT (0.6 [0.4-1.2] vs. 0.9 [0.6-2.3] mg/L, p < 0.001). The frequency of high residual inflammation was also lower in the MACT group (10.8% vs. 27.2%, p < 0.001) (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.33 [0.20-0.54], p < 0.001). This effect was consistent across sensitivity analyses. There was no difference in platelet reactivity between MACT and DAPT (49.6 ± 49.0 vs. 51.5 ± 66.4 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU] measured by VerifyNow, p = 0.776). Conclusion: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, MACT was associated with a lower rate of high residual inflammation without increasing platelet reactivity compared to conventional DAPT. Clinical trial registration: NCT04949516 for MACT pilot trial and NCT04650529 for Gyeongsang National University Hospital registry.

Comparative effects of different antiplatelet strategies in carriers of CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Carriers of cytochrome 2C19 (CYP2C19) loss of function (LoF) alleles treated with clopidogrel have impaired drug metabolism resulting in reduced active metabolite levels, high platelet reactivity (HPR), and an increased risk of thrombotic events. Several alternative antiplatelet therapies have been proposed to overcome HPR in these patients, but their comparative effects remain poorly explored. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral antiplatelet therapies in carriers of CYP2C19 LoF alleles undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were included. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate mean difference (MD) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome was platelet reactivity assessed by VerifyNow and reported as P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU). The secondary outcome was the rate of HPR. Standard-dose of clopidogrel (75 mg daily) was used as reference treatment. RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs testing 6 alternative strategies (i.e., clopidogrel 150 mg, prasugrel 3.75 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg, ticagrelor 90 mg bid, and adjunctive cilostazol 100 mg bid) were included in the network. Compared with standard-dose clopidogrel, the greatest reduction in PRU was observed with prasugrel 10 mg (MD -127.91; 95% CI -141.04; -114.78) and ticagrelor 90 mg bid (MD -124.91; 95% CI -161.78; -88.04), followed by prasugrel 5 mg (MD -76.33; 95% CI -98.01; -54.65) and prasugrel 3.75 mg (MD -73.00; 95% CI -100.28; -45.72). Among other strategies, adjunctive cilostazol (MD-42.64; 95% CI -64.72; -20.57) and high-dose clopidogrel (MD -32.11; 95% CI -51.33; -12.90) were associated with a modest reduction in PRU compared with standard-dose clopidogrel. CONCLUSION: Among carriers of CYP2C19 LoF alleles undergoing PCI, standard-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor are most effective in reducing platelet reactivity, while double-dose clopidogrel and additional cilostazol showed modest effects. Reduced-dose of prasugrel may represent a balanced strategy to overcome HPR without a significant increase in bleeding. The clinical implications of these pharmacodynamic findings warrant further investigation.

Evaluating the Effect of Estimating Renal Function With the CKD-EPI 2021 Equation on the ABCD-GENE Score for Clopidogrel Response Prediction.

The ABCD-GENE score was developed to predict poor response to clopidogrel and includes Age, Body mass index, Chronic kidney disease (CKD; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2), Diabetes, and CYP2C19 GENE variants; a score ≥ 10 is predictive of reduced clopidogrel effectiveness after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Estimation of GFR without a race variable via the CKD-EPI Scr 2021 equation is now recommended. We examined the impact of using the CKD-EPI Scr 2021 vs. 2009 equation on the ABCD-GENE score for post-PCI patients. A total of 4335 adult patients (n = 925 Black) who underwent PCI and CYP2C19 genotyping were included, with GFR estimated for each patient via the CKD-EPI Scr 2021 and CKD-EPI 2009 equations. The ABCD-GENE score, calculated based on each GFR estimation, was compared. With the CKD-EPI Scr 2021 vs. 2009 equation, median (IQR) eGFR was lower (74 [55-94] vs. 81 [60-103] mL/min/1.73 m2, P < 0.001), and CKD prevalence was higher (31% vs. 25%, P < 0.001) among Black patients, whereas eGFR was higher (85 [65-99] vs. 80 [61-94] mL/min/1.73m2, P < 0.001), and CKD prevalence was lower (20% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) in non-Black patients. This led to 12 (1%) Black patients being reclassified from low to high risk of poor clopidogrel response and 30 (1%) non-Black patients being recategorized from high to low risk (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Removal of the race variable from GFR estimation significantly impacted the prediction of clopidogrel effectiveness via the ABCD-GENE score.

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.

Clopidogrel-Mediated P2Y12 Inhibition According to Renal Function in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and CAD.

This prospective ex vivo and in vitro pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic investigation was conducted in patients with diabetes mellitus with (n = 31) and without chronic kidney disease (n = 30). PD assessments included platelet reactivity index, maximum platelet aggregation, and P2Y12 reaction units. Ex vivo pharmacokinetic assessments included plasma levels of clopidogrel and its active metabolite. In vitro PD assessments were conducted on baseline samples incubated with escalating concentrations of clopidogrel and its active metabolite. Among patients with diabetes mellitus treated with clopidogrel, impaired renal function was associated with increased maximum platelet aggregation. This finding could be attributed partially to upregulation of the P2Y12 activity without differences in drug absorption or metabolism. (Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Clopidogrel Effects in Diabetes Mellitus; NCT03774394).

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.

The Evolving Field of Acute Coronary Syndrome Management: A Critical Appraisal of the 2023 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), encompassing conditions like ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), represent a significant challenge in cardiovascular care due to their complex pathophysiology and substantial impact on morbidity and mortality. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for ACS management introduce several updates in key areas such as invasive treatment timing in NSTE-ACS, pre-treatment strategies, approaches to multivessel disease, and the use of imaging modalities including computed tomography (CT) coronary angiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and intracoronary imaging techniques, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). They also address a modulation of antiplatelet therapy, taking into consideration different patient risk profiles, and introduce new recommendations for low-dose colchicine. These guidelines provide important evidence-based updates in practice, reflecting an evolution in the understanding and management of ACS, yet some potentially missed opportunities for more personalized care and technology adoption are discussed.