Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor in chronic coronary syndrome patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can prevent cardiovascular events is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate outcomes of complex PCI and the efficacy of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in stable patients randomized in the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading with the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting) trial. METHODS: All PCI procedures were blindly reviewed and classified as complex if they had at least 1 of the following criteria: stent length >60 mm, 2-stent bifurcation, left main, bypass graft, chronic total occlusion, use of atherectomy or guiding catheter extensions, multiwire technique, multiple stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of type 4a or b myocardial infarction (MI) and major myocardial injury during the 48 hours after PCI. We compared the event rates according to the presence or not of complex PCI criteria and evaluated the interaction with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. RESULTS: Among the 1,866 patients randomized, 910 PCI (48.3%) were classified as complex PCI. The primary endpoint was more frequent in complex PCI (45.6% vs 26.6%; P < 0.001) driven by higher rates of type 4 MI and angiographic complications (12.2% vs 4.8 %; P < 0.001 and 19.3% vs 8.6%; P < 0.05, respectively). The composite of death, MI, and stroke at 48 hours (12.7% vs 5.1 %; P < 0.05) and at 30 days (13.4% vs 5.3%; P < 0.05) was more frequent in complex PCI. No interaction was found between PCI complexity and the randomized treatment for the primary endpoint (Pinteraction = 0.47) nor the secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In chronic coronary syndrome, patients undergoing a complex PCI have higher rates of periprocedural and cardiovascular events that are not reduced by ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel.

Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Clopidogrel-Naive Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy before undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading With the P2Y12 Inhibitor Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel to Halt Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Stenting) trial, patients were defined as clopidogrel(+) and clopidogrel(-) according to the presence and absence of clopidogrel treatment for ≥7 days before PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint was the composite of PCI-related myocardial infarction and major injury as defined by the third and fourth universal definition 48 hours after PCI. RESULTS: A total of 1,882 patients were included, 805 (42.7%) of whom were clopidogrel(+). These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had more frequent features of complex PCI. The primary endpoint was less frequently present in clopidogrel(-) compared to clopidogrel(+) patients (32.8% vs 40.0%; OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.88), but no significant differences were reported for the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack at 48 hours or 30 days. Ticagrelor did not reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis or the risk of adverse outcomes, and there was no significant interaction regarding the presence of chronic clopidogrel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel-naive patients presented less periprocedural complications compared to clopidogrel(+) patients, a difference related to a lower risk profile and less complex PCI. The absence of clopidogrel at baseline did not affect the absence of a difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in terms of PCI-related complications supporting the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care in elective PCI in patients with or without chronic clopidogrel treatment.

Cardiogenic shock and chronic kidney disease: Dangerous liaisons.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, closely interrelated with cardiovascular diseases, ultimately leading to the failure of both organs - the so-called "cardiorenal syndrome". Despite this burden, data related to cardiogenic shock outcomes in CKD patients are scarce. METHODS: FRENSHOCK (NCT02703038) was a prospective registry involving 772 patients with cardiogenic shock from 49 centres. One-year outcomes (rehospitalization, death, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device) were analysed according to history of CKD at admission and were adjusted on independent predictive factors. RESULTS: CKD was present in 164 of 771 patients (21.3%) with cardiogenic shock; these patients were older (72.7 vs. 63.9years) and had more comorbidities than those without CKD. CKD was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality at 1month (36.6% vs. 23.2%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.9; P=0.04) and 1year (62.8% vs. 40.5%, hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.77; P<0.01). Patients with CKD were less likely to be treated with norepinephrine/epinephrine or undergo invasive ventilation or receive mechanical circulatory support, but were more likely to receive renal replacement therapy (RRT). RRT was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death at 1month and 1year regardless of baseline CKD status. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic shock and CKD are frequent "cross-talking" conditions with limited therapeutic options, resulting in higher rates of death at 1month and 1year. RRT is a strong predictor of death, regardless of preexisting CKD. Multidisciplinary teams involving cardiac and kidney physicians are required to provide integrated care for patients with failure of both organs.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577). RESULTS: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Safety and efficacy of NOAC vs. VKA in patients treated by PCI: a retrospective study of the FRANCE PCI registry.

Introduction: Dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) combining oral anticoagulation (OAC), preferentially Non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC) and single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) for a period of 6-12 months is recommended after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an indication for OAC. Objective: To compare outcomes between vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and NOAC-treated patients in the nation-wide France PCI registry. Methods: All consecutive patients from the France PCI registry treated by PCI and discharged with OAC between 2014 and 2020 were included and followed one-year. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification ≥3 and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemic stroke. A propensity-score analysis was used. Results: Of the 7,277 eligible participants, 2,432 (33.4%) were discharged on VKA and 4,845 (66.6%) on NOAC. After propensity-score adjustment, one-year major bleeding was less frequent in NOAC vs. VKA-treated participants [3.1% vs. 5.2%, -2.1% (-3.6% to -0.6%), p = 0.005 as well as the rate of MACE [9.2% vs. 11.9%, -2.7% (-5.0% to -0.4%), p = 0.02]. One-year mortality was also significantly decreased in NOAC vs. VKA-treated participants [7.4% vs. 9.9%, -2.6% (-4.7% to -0.5%), p = 0.02]. The area under ROC curves of the anticoagulant treatment propensity score was estimated at 0.93, suggesting potential indication bias. Conclusions: NOAC seems to have a better efficacy and safety profile than VKA. However, potential indication bias were found.