Randomized comparison of 6- versus 24-month clopidogrel therapy after balancing anti-intimal hyperplasia stent potency in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Design and rationale for the PROlonging Dual-antiplatelet treatment after Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia study (PRODIGY).

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting is debated because of the scarcity of randomized controlled trials and inconsistencies arising from registry data. Although prolonged clopidogrel therapy after bare metal stenting is regarded as an effective secondary prevention measure, the safety profile of drug-eluting stents itself has been questioned in patients not receiving ≥ 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy. HYPOTHESIS: Twenty-four months of clopidogrel therapy after coronary stenting reduces the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with 6 months of treatment. STUDY DESIGN: PRODIGY is an unblinded, multicenter, 4-by-2 randomized trial. All-comer patients with indication to coronary stenting are randomly treated-balancing randomization-with bare metal stent (no active late loss inhibition), Endeavor Sprint zotarolimus-eluting stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA) (mild late loss inhibition), Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) (moderate late loss inhibition), or Xience V everolimus-eluting stent (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) (high late loss inhibition). At 30 days, patients in each stent group are randomly allocated to receive 24 or up to 6 months of clopidogrel therapy-primary end point randomization. With 1,700 individuals, this study will have >80% power to detect a 40% difference in the primary end point after sample size augmentation of 5% and a background event rate of 8%. SUMMARY: The PRODIGY trial aims to assess whether 24 months of clopidogrel therapy improves cardiovascular outcomes after coronary intervention in a broad all-comer patient population receiving a balanced mixture of stents with various anti-intimal hyperplasia potency.

Abciximab: a reappraisal of its use in coronary care.

Platelet reactivity plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of ischemic adverse events during and after acute coronary syndromes (ACS), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors are the strongest antiplatelet agents currently available on the market and three different compounds, namely abciximab, tirofiban, and eptifibatide, have been approved for clinical use. Abciximab has been investigated in the clinical field far more extensively than the other GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. Abciximab is an anti-integrin Fab fragment of a human - mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody with high affinity and a slow dissociation rate from the GP IIb/IIIa platelet receptor. Abciximab, given shortly before the coronary intervention, is superior to placebo in reducing the acute risk of ischemic complications (EPIC, EPISTENT, EPILOG trials); moreover, in the ISAR-REACT 2 study abciximab has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse events in patients with non ST-segment elevation ACS who are undergoing PCI even after optimal pre-treatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel. Finally, abciximab has been also used in abciximab-coated stent, with only bolus administration regimen and for direct intracoronary use with promising results that may extend and/or modify its current use in clinical practice in future.

A strategy to offset the extra cost of sirolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing intervention for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain a quantitative estimate of the overall costs and cost effectiveness ratio of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation and tirofiban infusion compared to abciximab and bare metal stent (BMS) in patients undergoing primary intervention for acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: In the attempt to make the unrestricted use of SES in STEMI patients affordable under the current European reimbursement system, between March 6, 2003, and April 23, 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomized to receive tirofiban infusion and SES versus abciximab and BMS as part of the STRATEGY trial. Costs and outcome were monitored for 2 years. RESULTS: The cost of the index procedure was 9345 euros +/-2573 and 9657+/-2114 for the tirofiban+SES and abciximab+BMS group, respectively (P=0.048). At follow-up, the composite of death or myocardial infarction and the costs not related to target vessel revascularisation (TVR) did not differ in the two groups while the rate of TVR and the costs related to it were lower in the tirofiban+SES group. The overall 2-year cost of treating a patient in the tirofiban+SES group was 10,971 euros +/-4185 compared to 12,066 euros +/-4636 for the abciximab+BMS group (P=0.006). Halving the cost of abciximab resulted in higher initial hospital costs for the tirofiban+SES but overall cost neutrality over a 24-month time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to abciximab+BMS, tirofiban infusion+SES implantation in STEMI patients was an economically dominant strategy, with an improved composite outcome and lower overall costs.

Two-year clinical follow-up after sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation assisted by systematic glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Infusion in patients with myocardial infarction: results from the STRATEGY study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate whether the previously reported midterm clinical benefit of planned sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was maintained over a 24-month time period. Moreover, the distribution of clinical events in relation to thienopyridine discontinuation was thoroughly investigated. BACKGROUND: No randomized data are currently available on the safety/benefit profile of SES in this subset of patients beyond 12 months. METHODS: Between March 2003 and April 2004, 175 patients with STEMI were randomly allocated to tirofiban infusion followed by SES or abciximab plus bare-metal stent (BMS). Complete follow-up information up to 720 days was available for all patients. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR) remained lower in the tirofiban-SES compared with the abciximab-BMS group at 2 years (24.2% vs. 38.6%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.98]; p = 0.038). The composite of death/MI was similar in the tirofiban-SES (16.1%) and the abciximab-BMS groups (20.5%, HR 0.77 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.55]; p = 0.43) while the need for TVR was markedly reduced (9.8% vs. 25.5%, respectively; HR 0.34 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.77]; p = 0.01) in the tirofiban-SES arm. The rate of confirmed, probable, or possible stent thrombosis did not differ in the 2 groups, nor the incidence of death/MI after thienopyridine discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: The midterm clinical benefit of planned SES implantation assisted by tirofiban infusion in STEMI patients was mainly carried over after 2 years with no overall excess of late adverse events after thienopyridine discontinuation.

Two-by-two factorial comparison of high-bolus-dose tirofiban followed by standard infusion versus abciximab and sirolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction: design and rationale for the MULTI-STRATEGY trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment standards for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention support early infusion of abciximab, followed by bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. Whether the use of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) would result in a further improvement of clinical outcomes remains to be proven. Similarly, whether tirofiban administered at high-bolus dose (HBD) followed by standard infusion is a valuable alternative to abciximab in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Multicentre evaluation of single high-bolus dose tirofiban versus abciximab and sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (MULTI-STRATEGY) is a phase III, open-label, multinational investigator-driven clinical trial evaluating, with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the safety/efficacy profile of 4 interventional strategies of reperfusion: tirofiban given at HBD (bolus of 25 microg/kg over 3 minutes), followed by an infusion of 0.15 microg/kg per minute for 18 to 24 hours versus abciximab and SES, as compared to BMS implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The coprimary objectives are (i) the evaluation of the effect of SES versus BMS on the incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 8 months of the index procedure and (ii) the degree of ST-segment resolution obtained after the mechanical intervention for the comparison of HBD tirofiban versus abciximab. The protocol mandates clinical follow-up for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: MULTI-STRATEGY will evaluate the role of SES and HBD tirofiban versus BMS and abciximab in the acute management of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Tissue factor and coagulation factor VII levels during acute myocardial infarction: association with genotype and adverse events.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated in patients with ongoing myocardial infarction (MI) whether coagulation factor VII (FVII) and tissue factor (TF) levels are affected at admission by genetic components and whether they may predict subsequent cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: 256 patients admitted for MI were evaluated for FVII and TF antigen levels before any treatment at entry, and were genotyped for FVII and TF polymorphisms. FVII gene insertions at -323, 11293 and the -402G/A change predicted FVII levels and explained 14% of variance. The -603 TF gene polymorphism failed to affect significantly TF levels (P=0.07). These variables were correlated with the incidence of death (36 patients) and reinfarction (9 patients) after a median follow-up of 397 days. Events were independently predicted by FVII (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2 to 5.7) and TF (HR 4.1, 95% CI 2 to 11) levels. Composite end point was significantly worse when both parameters were above the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) values (HR 8.3, 95% CI 5 to 18, compared with FVII and TF below), and above the ROC value of TF (>630 pg/mL) it differed among FVII genotype groups. CONCLUSIONS: Admission FVII and TF antigen levels, partially predicted by polymorphisms, are independent predictors of mortality and reinfarction in patients with acute MI.

[Markers of coronary damage. From diagnosis to prognosis]. / I marcatori di danno coronarico. Dalla diagnosi alla prognosi.

UNLABELLED: Cardiovascular disease is a major public health problem. Rapid and accurate diagnosis in the emergency department is essential for timely initiation of treatment, thus any means for improving the speed and accuracy of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) diagnosis can contribute to better clinical and economic outcomes. Measurement of circulating level of troponin has proven to be a sensitive and specific test for cardiac damage detection but they do not discriminate between ischemic and not ischemic etiologies of myocardial injury. Combining troponin with other cardiac biomarkers may offer complimentary information on the underlying pathobiology and prognosis in an individual patient, may increase the analytic sensitivity for myocardial damage and offer insights into the timing and mechanism of myocardial injury. Several prospective epidemiological studies have documented an association between inflammatory markers and cardiovascular disease and their role in primary and secondary prevention and as predictor of mortality. OBJECTIVE: We sought to report a selected but representative evidence on some new biological markers of cardiac damage, including inflammatory cytokines in patients with cardiovascular disease. DATA SOURCES: We searched in Medline from January 1998 to March 2005 for all studies focusing on the diagnostic and prognostic value of new markers of cardiac damage in patients with ACS and heart failure. CONCLUSION: The use of necrotic markers to risk stratify patients with chest pain has become an established practice in the clinical setting while the role of other inflammatory biomarkers, despite being still undefined, seems promising under both pathophysiologic and prognostic perspective.