Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal groove, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable-polymer coronary stent - five-year results of the TARGET All Comers randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In the prospective, multicentre, randomised TARGET All Comers study, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the FIREHAWK biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) was non-inferior to the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. AIMS: We aimed to report the final study outcomes at 5 years. METHODS: Patients referred for PCI were randomised to receive either a BP-SES or DP-EES in a 1:1 ratio in 10 European countries. Randomisation was stratified by centre and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, and clinical follow-up extended to 5 years. The primary endpoint was TLF (composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation). Secondary endpoints included patient-oriented composite events (POCE; composite of all-cause death, all MI, or any revascularisation and its components). RESULTS: From December 2015 to October 2016, 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to the BP-SES or DP-EES groups, of which 93.8% completed 5-year clinical follow-up or were deceased. At 5 years, TLF occurred in 17.1% of the BP-SES group and in 16.3% of the DP-EES group (p=0.68). POCE occurred in 34.0% of the BP-SES group and 32.7% of the DP-EES group (p=0.58). Revascularisation was the most common POCE, occurring in 19.3% of patients receiving BP-SES and 19.2% receiving DP-EES, of which less than one-third was ischaemia-driven target lesion-related. In the landmark analysis, there were no differences in the rates of TLF and POCE between groups from 1 to 5 years, and these results were consistent across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In an all-comers population requiring stent implantation for myocardial ischaemia, the BP-SES was non-inferior to the DP-EES for the primary endpoint of TLF at 12 months, and results were sustained at 5 years, confirming the long-term safety and efficacy of the FIREHAWK BP-SES.

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Planned versus unplanned rotational atherectomy for plaque modification in severely calcified coronary lesions.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the optimal timing of RA is scarce, although increased periprocedural complications for unplanned procedures have been reported. AIMS: To compare planned versus unplanned use of rotational atherectomy (RA) for plaque modification in patients with severely calcified coronary lesions. METHODS: Procedural and 1-year follow-up data of planned (n = 562 lesions in 448 vessels of 416 patients) and unplanned (n = 490 lesions in 435 vessels of 403 patients) RA between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed using the propensity score methods. The primary composite endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as cardiovascular death (CVD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Angiographic success was > 99% in both groups. Fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were significantly lower in planned RA (p < 0.001). Periprocedural complications including slow-flow, coronary dissection, and MI occurred in 4.8% after planned, and in 5.7% after unplanned RA. TLF occurred in 18.5% after planned, and in 14.7% after unplanned RA. Weighted subdistribution hazard ratios for TLFs revealed an unfavorable 1-year outcome for planned RA (sHR 1.62 [1.07-2.45], p = 0.023), which was driven by TLR (sHR 2.01 [1.18-3.46], p = 0.011), but not by CVD, or TVMI. No differences were observed in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned RA was associated with favorable outcome when compared to planned RA. Thus, RA can safely be reserved for lesions that prove untreatable by conventional means. Randomized and prospective trials are needed to evaluate a predominant use of rotational atherectomy as a bailout strategy in the future.

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined. METHODS: This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 109/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 109/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 109/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p = 0.138, p int = 0.102). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with off-hour versus on-hour presentation: a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (Pint = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion following transradial coronary angiography: the proRadial trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the contemporary incidence and predictors of radial artery occlusion as well as the effectiveness of antithrombotic treatment for radial artery occlusion following transradial coronary angiography. BACKGROUND: The radial artery is the standard access for coronary angiography and even complex interventions. Postprocedural radial artery occlusion is still a common and significant complication. METHODS: This prospective study enrolled 2004 patients following transradial coronary angiography. After sheath removal, hemostasis was obtained in a standardized fashion. Radial artery patency was evaluated by duplex ultrasonography in all patients. In case of occlusion, oral anticoagulation was recommended and patients were scheduled for a 30-day follow-up including Doppler ultrasonography. RESULTS: A new-diagnosed radial occlusion was found in 4.6% of patients. The strongest independent predictors of radial occlusion were female sex and active smoking status. In the subgroup of patients with percutaneous coronary interventions, female sex followed by sheath size > 6 French were the strongest predictors of radial occlusion. 76 of 93 patients with radial occlusion received an oral anticoagulation for 30 days. However, reperfusion at 30 days was found in 32% of patients on oral anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: The incidence of radial artery occlusion following coronary angiography in contemporary practice appears with 4.6% to be lower as compared to previous cohorts. Female sex and smoking status are the strongest independent predictors of radial occlusion followed by procedural variables. The limited effectiveness of oral anticoagulation for treatment of radial artery occlusion suggests a primarily traumatic than thrombotic mechanism of this complication.

Prior Myocardial Infarction and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes - A Post-hoc Analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 Trial.

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.37). With regard to the secondary safety end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.56-2.91) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82-1.55) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P<0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P<0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary (P for interaction=0.12) or secondary (P for interaction=0.80) end points. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) and 3-Year Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

We aimed at addressing the association between serum lipoprotein (a) levels and clinical outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing PCI. We used consecutive patients undergoing PCI at the Heart Center University of Freiburg, Bad Krozingen in Germany between January 2005 and November 2013. A total of 6679 patients (men [n = 5391] and women [n = 1288]) with mean age of 67.5 (± 11.1) years were assessed at baseline and prospectively followed for 3 years. Lp(a) measurement was performed at hospital admission as a routine laboratory parameter. Approximately 30% of PCI patients showed an elevated Lp(a) value of more than 50 mg/dL. In total, 736 Patients died during the follow-up, thereof 189 (11.3%) in the first quartile, 186 (10.7%) in the second quartile, 183 (11.5%) in the third quartile and 178 (10.7%) in the last quartile (P value 0.843 from LogRank test). The MACE rate showed consistent results with 409 (24.4%), 385 (22.1%), 395 (24.7%) and 419 (25.3%) in the different respective quartiles (P value 0.125 from LogRank test). In this large non-selected cohort of patients undergoing PCI followed by moderate intensity statin therapy, higher Lp(a) levels were not associated with worse clinical outcomes during a follow-up of 3 years.

Impact of On-Clopidogrel Platelet Reactivity on Incidence of Peri-Interventional Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) has previously been recommended after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and is still the standard of care in patients who underwent coronary stent placement within 3 months prior to TAVI. This study sought to evaluate whether on-treatment platelet reactivity is a predictor for the occurrence of bleeding events after TAVI. This study enrolled 484 patients undergoing TAVI from November 2013 until April 2018. Patients were either on long-term DAPT with clopidogrel and ASA or received loading doses of both drugs before TAVI, reflecting the standard of care at the time of the patient's enrollment. Platelet reactivity was determined by multi-electrode impedance aggregometry before TAVI, at days 1 and 5 thereafter. Peri-interventional bleeding was assessed up to 5 days following TAVI and coded according to BARC-classification. Bleeding events were seen in 199 (41.1%) patients. The most frequent were BARC 2 bleeding cases (24.2%), followed by BARC 1 (6.0%), BARC 3b (5.2%), and BARC 3a (4.5%) cases. Low on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity before TAVI was present in 243 patients, of which 44.4% had a bleeding event. In contrast, the incidence of bleeding was 30.5% in the 95 patients with high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified low/normal/high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (OR: 0.533; CI: 0.309-0.917; p = 0.023) and use of oral anticoagulation (OR: 1.766; CI: 1.209-2.581; p = 0.003) as strongest predictors for peri-interventional bleeding events. These findings support current recommendations advocating against the routine use of dual antiplatelet therapy following TAVI.

Pre-admission antiplatelet therapy and treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes-a subgroup analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

AIMS: To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10-2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3-5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54). CONCLUSION: In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.

Access Route and Clinical Outcomes After Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Treatment Strategy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01944800.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with intrinsic and on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetically determined, and causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Laboratory data have suggested an interaction of Lp(a) with platelet function, potentially caused by its interaction with platelet receptors. So far, the potential association of Lp(a) with platelet activation and reactivity has not been proven in larger clinical cohorts. This study analyzed intrinsic platelet reactivity before loading with clopidogrel 600 mg and on-treatment platelet reactivity tested 24 h following loading in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. Platelet reactivity was tested by optical aggregometry following stimulation with collagen or adenosine diphosphate as well as by flow cytometry. Lp(a) levels were directly measured in all patients from fresh samples. The present analysis included 1912 patients. Lp(a) levels ranged between 0 and 332 mg/dl. There was a significant association of rising levels of Lp(a) with a higher prevalence of a history of ischemic heart disease (p < 0.001) and more extensive coronary artery disease (p = 0.001). Results for intrinsic (p = 0.80) and on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (p = 0.81) did not differ between quartiles of Lp(a) levels. Flow cytometry analyses of expression of different platelet surface proteins (CD41, CD62P or PAC-1) confirmed these findings. Correlation analyses of levels of Lp(a) with any of the tested platelet activation markers did not show any correlation. The present data do not support the hypothesis of an interaction of Lp(a) with platelet reactivity.

Prevalence and Causes of Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in a Contemporary Cohort of Patients with Suspected Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) has no coronary obstruction at coronary angiography and no other obvious non-coronary pathophysiology causing MI. These patients are classified as MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA). Data on incidence and predictors of MINOCA are still limited. METHODS: This study enrolled patients presenting symptoms suggestive of MI and undergoing a comprehensive cardiac work-up including an early invasive strategy. Patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries and without other obvious reasons for MI were scheduled for further work-up including magnetic resonance or intraluminal imaging. MINOCA was diagnosed according to the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: From the 1532 patients enrolled, 730 had available coronary imaging and 546 were diagnosed with MI. No significant coronary obstructions were found in 117 patients with MI. After the exclusion of 6 patients with acute myocarditis or takotsubo-syndrome as well as 88 with type II MI, 23 patients were diagnosed with MINOCA (4% of all MIs). Among these 23 patients, the most common etiology of MINOCA was thromboembolic events followed by coronary spasm. Female sex, the absence of hypercholesterolemia, and a normal left-ventricular ejection fraction were independently predictive for MINOCA compared to patients with other causes of MI. CONCLUSION: More than 20% of patients presenting with acute MI showed no significant coronary obstruction. About 4% of these patients were diagnosed with MINOCA. Female sex, a lower cardiovascular risk profile, and normal left-ventricular function were predictive for MINOCA.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). BACKGROUND: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. METHODS: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m2), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m2), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year. RESULTS: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800).

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding. Results: The ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

Impact of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T on survival and rehospitalization after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Constant elevations of the serum concentration of cardiac troponin T (TnT) indicate a myocardial injury that may affect the long-term outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the impact of pre-TAVR TnT on outcomes after TAVR during long-term follow-up. METHODS: In a retrospective, observational study we compared long term outcomes after TAVR between tertiles of preinterventional high-sensitivity TnT. Systematic follow-up was performed annually for 5 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and any rehospitalization. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018, 2,129 patients with severe aortic valve stenosis underwent TAVR at our institution (mean age 82.6 years, 57.2% female, logistic EuroSCORE 20.5 ± 15.8). Boundaries for TnT tertiles were <21 ng/L and >42 ng/L. The median follow-up was 895 days. Three-year incidences for the primary endpoint were 70.9%, 76.6%, and 81.7% in the low, middle, and high tertile (log rank p < .001). Compared with the first tertile, the corresponding adjusted hazard ratios were 1.23 (95%-CI 1.08-1.40, p < .001) and 1.50 (95%-CI 1.32-1.70, p < .001) for the second and third tertile. We found consistent differences between TnT strata for all-cause death (3-year incidences 23.3%, 33.3%, and 47.1%; adjusted p < .001) and rehospitalization (3-year incidences 64.7%, 68.7% and 72.0%; adjusted p < .001), including significant differences in deaths (p < .001). The association between TnT and outcome was independent of coronary artery disease or low aortic valve gradient. CONCLUSIONS: TnT before TAVR is strongly associated with all-cause death and rehospitalization during 3-year follow-up.