RESUMO
BACKGROUND: After myocardial infarction, guidelines recommend higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, namely ticagrelor and prasugrel, over clopidogrel. HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to determine the contemporary use of higher-potency antiplatelet therapy in Canadian patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). METHODS: A total of 684 moderate-to-high risk NSTEMI patients were enrolled in the prospective Canadian ACS Reflective II registry at 12 Canadian hospitals and three clinics in five provinces between July 2016 and May 2018. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to assess factors independently associated with higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor use at discharge. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 78.3% of patients were treated with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. Among patients discharged on a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, use of higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor was 61.4%. After adjustment, treatment in-hospital with PCI (OR 4.48, 95%CI 3.34-6.03, p < .0001) was most strongly associated with higher use of higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, while oral anticoagulant use at discharge (OR 0.03, 95%CI 0.01-0.12, p < .0001), and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.17-0.98, p = .046) were most strongly associated with lower use of higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. Use of higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor varied across provinces (range, 21.6%-78.9%). DISCUSSION: In contemporary Canadian practice, approximately 60% of moderate-to-high risk NSTEMI patients discharged on a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor are treated with a higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. In addition to factors that increase risk of bleeding, interprovincial differences in practice patterns were associated with use of higher-potency P2Y12 receptor inhibitor at discharge. Opportunities remain for further optimization of evidence-based, guideline-recommended antiplatelet therapy use.
Assuntos
Infarto do Miocárdio , Infarto do Miocárdio sem Supradesnível do Segmento ST , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Canadá , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Infarto do Miocárdio/diagnóstico , Infarto do Miocárdio/tratamento farmacológico , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Infarto do Miocárdio sem Supradesnível do Segmento ST/diagnóstico , Infarto do Miocárdio sem Supradesnível do Segmento ST/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária/efeitos adversos , Cloridrato de Prasugrel , Estudos Prospectivos , Antagonistas do Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/efeitos adversos , Ticlopidina , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Extension of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after acute coronary syndrome is associated with a reduction in ischemic events but also increased bleeding. The DAPT score identifies individuals likely to derive overall benefit or harm from DAPT extension. We sought to evaluate the impact of providing the DAPT score to treating physicians on the decision to extend DAPT beyond 1 year after non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: Moderate to high-risk non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were enrolled from July 2016 to May 2018 in 13 Canadian hospitals by 52 cardiologists. Participating cardiologists were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive their individual patients' DAPT scores before the 1-year follow-up visit vs not receiving their patients' DAPT scores. Rates of DAPT extension were compared among the randomized groups. RESULTS: At 1 year, 370 of the 585 (63.2%) patients discharged on DAPT were receiving DAPT. Among patients on DAPT at 1 year, the median (25th, 75th percentile) DAPT score was 2 (1,3). DAPT was extended beyond 1 year in 36.2% randomly assigned to provision of DAPT score vs 35.7% in the control group (P = 0.93). In the subgroup of patients with DAPT score ≥ 2, DAPT extension was 49.5% in the DAPT score provision arm vs 40.4% in the control arm (P = 0.22); among patients with DAPT score < 2, DAPT termination was 78.6% in the DAPT score provision arm vs 70.6% in the control arm (P = 0.26) (P value for interaction = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory randomized trial, provision of the DAPT score to treating physicians had no impact on the duration of DAPT treatment beyond 1 year.
INTRODUCTION: La prolongation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire au-delà d'un an après un syndrome coronarien aigu est associée à la réduction des accidents ischémiques, mais aussi à l'augmentation des hémorragies. Le score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire permet de déterminer les individus susceptibles d'obtenir des avantages globaux ou des inconvénients de la prolongation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire. Nous avons cherché à évaluer les répercussions de l'obtention du score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire par les médecins traitants sur la décision quant à la prolongation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire au-delà d'un an après l'infarctus du myocarde sans élévation du segment ST. MÉTHODES: De juillet 2016 à mai 2018, 52 cardiologues de 13 hôpitaux du Canada ont inscrit des patients exposés à un risque modéré à élevé d'infarctus du myocarde sans élévation du segment ST. Nous avons réparti de façon aléatoire selon un rapport 1:1 les cardiologues participants qui recevaient les scores de bithérapie antiplaquettaire individuels de leurs patients avant la consultation de suivi après un an vs ceux qui ne recevaient pas les scores de bithérapie antiplaquettaire de leurs patients. Nous avons comparé les taux de prolongation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire des groupes répartis de façon aléatoire. RÉSULTATS: Après un an, 370 (63,2 %) patients sur 585 qui avaient eu à la sortie de l'hôpital une bithérapie antiplaquettaire recevaient la bithérapie antiplaquettaire. Parmi les patients qui prenaient la bithérapie antiplaquettaire après un an, le score médian de bithérapie antiplaquettaire (25e, 75e percentiles) était de 2 (1, 3). La bithérapie antiplaquettaire était prolongée au-delà d'un an chez 36,2 % des patients répartis de façon aléatoire qui avaient un score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire vs 35,7 % dans le groupe témoin (P = 0,93). Dans le sous-groupe de patients qui avaient un score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire ≥ 2, la prolongation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire était de 49,5 % dans le bras qui avait un score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire vs 40,4 % dans le bras témoin (P = 0,22); parmi les patients qui avaient un score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire < 2, la cessation de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire était de 78,6 % dans le bras qui avait un score de bithérapie antiplaquettaire vs 70,6 % dans le bras témoin (P = 0,26) (valeur P pour l'interaction = 0,1). CONCLUSIONS: Dans cet essai exploratoire à répartition aléatoire, l'obtention du score de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire par les médecins traitants n'a pas engendré de répercussions sur la durée de la bithérapie antiplaquettaire au-delà d'un an.
