Clinical implications of diabetes mellitus in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Prognostic role and use of new P2Y12 receptor inhibitors.

AIMS: We investigated the impact of diabetes mellitus (DM) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, and the 2-year prognosis based on antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: This is a prospective and multicenter registry including hospitalized ACS patients. Clinical management and antiplatelet therapy at discharge were recorded. Bleeding events, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were recorded during 2-years and compared according to DM and the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. RESULTS: From 1717 ACS patients, 653 (38%) had DM. Diabetic patients were older, more commonly females, with higher prevalence of comorbidities and more conservative management. After excluding antiplatelet monotherapy or oral anticoagulation, clopidogrel was prescribed in 59.6% of DM patients. Cox regression analysis showed that DM was an independent risk factor for MACE (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 1.05-1.83). The use of clopidogrel instead of ticagrelor/prasugrel was also independently associated with MACE (aHR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.63), and all-cause mortality (aHR 2.47, 95% CI 1.23-4.96) in diabetic patients (log-rank p-values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients, DM was associated with higher risk of MACE. In such patients, the use of ticagrelor/prasugrel reduced MACE and mortality compared to clopidogrel. Novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors might be used as the first therapeutic choice in these high-risk patients.

One-year efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Results from a prospective and multicentre ACHILLES registry.

BACKGROUND: Prasugrel and ticagrelor have demonstrated higher efficacy than clopidogrel in their main clinical trials for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the long-term prognosis and different clinical characteristics related to the type of antiplatelet prescription in current clinical practice ACS patients have not been analysed in depth. The objective of this study was to analyse the clinical profile of ACS and the efficacy and safety of novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors in current clinical practice patients discharged afterACS. METHODS: We collected data from the ACHILLES registry, and an observational, prospective and multicentre registry of patients discharged after ACS. We analysed baseline characteristics, clinical profile and therapy during ACS admission and compared with the different treatments at discharge. After 1 year of follow-up, ischaemic and major bleeding events were analysed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and Kaplan Meier curves were also plotted. RESULTS: Of 1717 consecutive patients, 1294 (75.4%) were discharged with a P2Y12 inhibitor without oral anticoagulation. Novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors were indicated in 47%. Patients treated with clopidogrel were elderly (69.1 ± 13.4 vs 60.4 ± 11.5 years; P < .001) and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. GRACE and CRUSADE scores were higher in the clopidogrel than in novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors group (P < .001). After 1 year of follow-up, 64(5.0%/year) patients had a new myocardial infarction, 127(10.0%/year) had a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and 78(6.1%/year) died. Patients treated with clopidogrel had a significantly higher annual rate of cardiovascular mortality, MACE and all-cause mortality (allP < .001) without differences in major bleeding (P = .587) compared with novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors. After multivariate adjustment for the main clinical variables related to adverse prognosis in ACS patients, the discharge with novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors therapy was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR0.49, 95% CI [0.24-0.98], P = .044) and lower risk of MACE (HR0.64, 95% CI [0.41-0.98], P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, observational and current clinical practice ACS registry, the use of novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with a reduction in adverse events compared with clopidogrel in patients with ACS. Novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors prescription at discharge was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality and MACE without differences in bleeding events. However, clopidogrel remained the most common P2Y12 inhibitor employed for ACS, especially in older and high-risk patients.

Conservatively managed patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome are undertreated with indicated medicines.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are often managed conservatively. Clinical practice guidelines recommend treating these patients with the same pharmacological drugs as those who receive invasive treatment. We analyze the use of new antiplatelet drugs (NADs) and other recommended treatments in people discharged following an NSTE-ACS according to the treatment strategy used, comparing the medium-term prognosis between groups. METHODS: Prospective observational multicenter registry study in 1717 patients discharged from hospital following an ACS; 1143 patients had experienced an NSTE-ACS. We analyzed groups receiving the following treatment: No cardiac catheterization (NO CATH): n = 134; 11.7%; Cardiac catheterization without revascularization (CATH-NO REVASC): n = 256; 22.4%; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): n = 629; 55.0%; and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG): n = 124; 10.8%. We assessed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and hemorrhagic complications at one year. RESULTS: NO CATH was the oldest, had the most comorbidities, and was at the highest risk for ischemic and hemorrhagic events. Few patients who were not revascularized with PCI received NADs (NO CATH: 3.7%; CATH-NO REVASC: 10.6%; PCI: 43.2%; CABG: 3.2%; p<0.001). Non-revascularized patients also received fewer beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and statins (p<0.001). At one year, MACE incidence in NO CATH group was three times that of the other groups (30.1%, p<0.001), and all-cause mortality was also much higher (26.3%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in hemorrhagic events. Belonging to NO CATH group was an independent predictor for MACE at one year in the multivariate analysis (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.29-5.73; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Despite current invasive management of NSTE-ACS, patients not receiving catheterization are at very high risk for under treatment with recommended drugs, including NADs. Their medium-term prognosis is poor, with high mortality. Patients treated with PCI receive better pharmacological management, with high use of NADs.