Diabetes mellitus and platelet reactivity in patients under prasugrel or ticagrelor treatment: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on platelet reactivity (PR) in prasugrel or ticagrelor treated patients is not well studied. METHODS: In an observational study involving 777 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treated by either prasugrel 10 mg od (n = 315) or ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n = 462), platelet function was assessed using the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay (in PRU) at one month post intrvention. RESULTS: In the overall population, ticagrelor and insulin-treated DM affected PR, with a decrease in log by 0.88 (corresponding to a 58 % decrease in PR) compared to prasugrel-treated patients (p < 0.001), and an increase in log by 0.26 (corresponding to a 30 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.01), respectively. PR in prasugrel-treated patients differed significantly by DM status: 70.0 (36.3-113.0) in non-diabetic vs 69.0 (44.5-115.3) in non insulin-treated diabetic vs 122.0 (69.0-161.0) in insulin-treated diabetic patients, p for trend = 0.01. No differences were observed in ticagrelor-treated patients. By multivariate analysis, in prasugrel-treated patients insulin-treated DM was the only factor predicting PR, with log of PR increased by 0.42 (corresponding to a 52 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.001). No factor was found to affect PR in ticagrelor-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with insulin-treated DM treated with prasugrel post PCI have higher PR, than patients without DM or non insulin-treated diabetic patients treated with this drug. Ticagrelor treated patients have overall lower PR than patients on prasugrel, independent of DM status or insulin treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Gov. NCT01774955.

Optimal QT/JT interval assessment in patients with complete bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged ventricular repolarization duration confers increased risk for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. We sought to clarify the optimal method of QT/JT interval assessment in patients with complete bundle branch block (BBB). METHODS: Study patients (n = 71) were dual-chamber device recipients with baseline left or right BBB who preserved intrinsic ventricular activation during incremental atrial pacing. Patients were classified according to the presence or not of structural heart disease. The former group received chronic amiodarone therapy. QT and JT intervals were recorded at baseline heart rate of 51 ± 4 beats/min and during atrial pacing at 60, 80, and 100 beats/min. We used linear mixed-effects models to assess the effect of heart rate on the derived QTc and JTc values with the use of six different heart rate correction formulae. RESULTS: Heart rate had a significant effect on the QTc and the JTc intervals regardless of the correction formula used (P < 0.001 for all formulae). The formula of Hodges demonstrated the least variability in QTc and JTc measurements across the different heart rates in both patients groups without (F = 15.05 and F = 13.53, respectively) and with structural heart disease (F = 5.71 and F = 7.69, respectively), followed by the Nomogram and Framingham methods, whereas the uncorrected QT and JT intervals showed comparable heart rate-dependency. The application of Bazett's JTc and QTc led to the most pronounced interval variations in any case with BBB. CONCLUSIONS: The Hodges, Nomogram and Framingham correction methods provide best assessment of QT/JT intervals in BBB, whereas Bazett's formula exaggerates heart rate-dependency of ventricular repolarization intervals.