Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

High on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity and restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the association between high on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity (HAPR) and the subsequent risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with predominantly drug-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: The association between HAPR and subsequent risk of restenosis after PCI is unclear. METHODS: This study included 4839 patients undergoing PCI (02/2007-12/2011) in the setting of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-ASpirin and Platelet Inhibition (ISAR-ASPI) registry. Platelet function was assessed with impedance aggregometry using the multi-plate analyzer immediately before PCI and after intravenous administration of aspirin (500 mg). The primary outcome was clinical restenosis, defined as target lesion revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included binary angiographic restenosis and late lumen loss at 6- to 8-month angiography. RESULTS: The upper quintile cut-off of platelet reactivity measurements (191 AU × min) was used to categorize patients into a group with HAPR (platelet reactivity > 191 AU × min; n = 952) and a group without HAPR (platelet reactivity ≤ 191 AU × min; n = 3887). The primary outcome occurred in 94 patients in the HAPR group and 405 patients without HAPR (cumulative incidence, 9.9% and 10.4%; HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.19; P = 0.70). Follow-up angiography was performed in 73.2% of patients. There was no difference in binary restenosis (15.2% vs. 14.9%; P = 0.79) or late lumen loss (0.32 ± 0.57 vs. 0.32 ± 0.59 mm; P = 0.93) between patients with HAPR versus those without HAPR. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find an association between HAPR, measured at the time of PCI, and clinical restenosis at 1 year after PCI.

Comparison of Vascular Closure Devices vs Manual Compression After Femoral Artery Puncture in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation - Post Hoc Analysis of the ISAR-CLOSURE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare vascular closure devices (VCD) with manual compression (MC) in patients on chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo diagnostic coronary angiography in terms of vascular access-site complications. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of 604 patients that had undergone transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography and were randomly assigned to arteriotomy closure with either VCDs (intravascular FemoSeal VCD or extravascular EXOSEAL VCD) or MC within the large scale, randomized ISAR-CLOSURE trial. Primary endpoint was the composite of access-site-related vascular complications at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were time to hemostasis and repeat MC. RESULTS: Vascular access-site complications were similar in patients assigned to VCDs compared to MC (8.2% vs 10.6%; P=.33). There was no interaction of treatment effect and OAC (P interaction = 0.59). Rates of pseudoaneurysms were lower with VCDs (0.8% vs 3.2%; P=.02). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCDs compared to MC (1 [IQR 0.5-2.0] min vs 12 [IQR 10-15] min; P<.001). There was no difference regarding repeat MC in both groups (VCD 1.5% vs MC 0.5%; P=.23). Time to hemostasis (0.5 [0.2-1.0] min, vs 2.0 [1.75-2.0] min; P<.001) and closure device failure (3.7% vs 17.2%; P<.001) were lower with the intravascular VCD, compared with the extravascular VCD. CONCLUSIONS: In patients on chronic OAC undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography, the use of VCDs was comparable to MC regarding the primary combined endpoint of vascular access-site related complications. VCDs reduced the occurrence of pseudoaneurysms and time to hemostasis.

Revacept, a Novel Inhibitor of Platelet Adhesion, in Patients Undergoing Elective PCI-Design and Rationale of the Randomized ISAR-PLASTER Trial.

Despite dual antiplatelet therapy patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continue to experience periprocedural ischemic events. In addition, all currently used antithrombotic drugs increase the bleeding risk. Thus, there is an unmet clinical need for antithrombotic strategies with improved efficacy and no increase in bleeding. Revacept is a novel, lesion-directed antithrombotic drug that does not interfere with the function of circulating platelets. This dimeric fusion protein of the extracellular domain of glycoprotein VI (the major platelet collagen receptor) and the human Fc-fragment inhibits collagen-mediated platelet adhesion and subsequent aggregation at the site of vascular injury. The randomized, double-blinded, phase II ISAR-PLASTER trial is based on extensive preclinical evaluation of Revacept and a favorable first-in-man trial. A total of 332 patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI will be randomized to either Revacept 160 mg, Revacept 80 mg, or placebo administered as single intravenous infusion directly before the intervention, on top of standard dual antiplatelet therapy and either heparin or bivalirudin, based on local practice and current guidelines. The primary endpoint is the composite of death or myocardial injury (defined as increase in high sensitivity troponin T ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal) at 48 hours. The safety endpoint is bleeding of class 2 or higher according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium at 30 days. This phase II randomized, double blind trial will assess for the first time the efficacy and safety of Revacept-a lesion-directed inhibitor of platelet adhesion-in patients undergoing elective PCI.