Comparison of Heart Rates in Patients Initiated on Ticagrelor Versus Other P2Y12 Inhibitors After an Inferior ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 inhibitors have differing associations of bradyarrhythmias. Ticagrelor has been shown to increase adenosine plasma concentrations leading to increases in bradyarrhythmias. While clopidogrel and prasugrel have not been shown to have any association with bradyarrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine heart rates after ticagrelor initiation compared to clopidogrel/prasugrel in inferior ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter study conducted at 3 primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2022. Adult patients were included if they were diagnosed with an inferior STEMI to the right coronary artery (RCA) and treated with PCI followed by an oral P2Y12 inhibitor. The primary outcome was heart rate at 48 hours or discharge, whichever first, after administration of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel/prasugrel. RESULTS: This study reviewed 331 patients, 172 in the ticagrelor group and 159 in the clopidogrel/prasugrel group. There were no statistical differences between groups regarding the primary outcome, with a median heart rate of 76 beats per minute (bpm) [67-85] in the ticagrelor group versus 73 bpm [66-84] in the clopidogrel/prasugrel group (P = 0.238). No differences were observed between groups regarding any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: There were similar heart rates between ticagrelor and clopidogrel/prasugrel. There were also similarities in the ability to tolerate beta-blocker therapy after initiation of a P2Y12 inhibitor. The results of this study suggest that in inferior STEMIs when using ticagrelor as the P2Y12 inhibitor, there are not increased clinical manifestations of bradycardia.

Multicenter Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor for Neuroendovascular Stents.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is commonly employed for neuroendovascular stenting due to the significant risk of thromboembolism. Clopidogrel and aspirin are most often selected as initial DAPTs; however, there is limited literature available to support guidance of DAPT in this setting. The objective of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy in patients whose final regimen included either DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel (DAPT-C) or DAPT with aspirin and ticagrelor (DAPT-T). METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients who underwent neuroendovascular stenting and received DAPT between July 1, 2017, and October 31, 2020. Study participants were allocated into groups based on discharge DAPT regimen. The primary outcome was incidence of stent thrombosis at 3-6 months on DAPT-C versus DAPT-T, as defined by the presence of thrombus on imaging or new onset stroke. Secondary outcomes included major and minor bleeding and death within 3-6 months after the procedure. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy patients were screened across 12 sites. Of those, 486 were included (DAPT-C n = 360, DAPT-T n = 126). There was no difference in the primary outcome of stent thrombosis between the DAPT-C and DAPT-T groups (8% vs. 8%, p = 0.97) and no difference in any of the secondary safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Using DAPT-C or DAPT-T regimens in a broad population of neuroendovascular stenting procedures appears to have similar safety and efficacy profiles. Further prospective evaluation is warranted to streamline the practice of DAPT selection and monitoring to determine the impact on clinical outcomes.

Multicenter comparison of antiplatelet treatment strategies for urgent/emergent neuroendovascular stenting.

BACKGROUND: Emergent neuroendovascular stenting presents challenges for the utilization of antiplatelet agents. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort of patients who underwent emergent neuroendovascular stenting. The primary endpoints were thrombotic and bleeding events in relation to the timing of antiplatelet administration, route of administration, and choice of intravenous (IV) agent and the study investigated practice variability in antiplatelet utilization. RESULTS: Five-hundred and seventy patients were screened across 12 sites. Of those, 167 were included for data analysis. For patients who presented with ischemic stroke, artery dissection and emergent internal carotid artery (ICA) stenting who received an antiplatelet agent prior to or during the procedure, 57% were given an IV antiplatelet agent; for patients who were given an antiplatelet agent after the procedure, 96% were given an oral agent. For patients who presented for aneurysm repair and received an antiplatelet agent prior to or during the procedure, 74% were given an IV agent; patients who were given an antiplatelet agent after the completion of the procedure were given an oral antiplatelet agent 90% of the time. In patients who presented with ischemic stroke, artery dissection and emergent ICA stenting who received oral antiplatelet agents post-procedure were more likely to have thrombotic events compared to those who received oral antiplatelet agents prior to or during the procedure (29% vs 9%; p = 0.04). There were no differences in the primary outcomes observed when comparing other antiplatelet treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: The optimal timing of antiplatelet administration in relation to stent placement and route of administration of antiplatelet agents is unclear. Timing and route of administration of antiplatelet agents may have an effect on thrombosis in emergent neuroendovascular stenting. Significant practice variation exists in antiplatelet agent utilization in emergent neuroendovascular stenting.

A meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of genotype-guided versus standard of care treatment strategies in selecting antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, treated with P2Y12 inhibitors based on genotype guidance compared to standard treatment. However, given lower than expected event rates, these studies were underpowered to assess hard outcomes. We sought to systematically analyze this evidence using pooled data from multiple studies. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for studies of ACS patients that underwent genotype-guided treatment (GGT) with P2Y12 inhibitors versus standard of care treatment (SCT). Studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. Rate of MACE (defined as a composite of cardiovascular [CV] mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], and nonfatal stroke) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were individual components of MI, CV mortality, ischemic stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and combined using random effects model meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4,095 patients (2007 in the GGT and 2088 in the SCT group were analyzed from three studies). Significantly lower odds of MACE (6.0 vs. 9.2%; OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50-0.80, p < .001, I2 = 0%) and MI (3.3 vs. 5.45%; OR: 0.63; CI 0.41-0.96; p = .03; I2 = 46%) were noted in the GGT group compared to SCT. No significant difference was noted with respect to CV and other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients with ACS, genotype-guided initiation of P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with lower odds of MACE and similar bleeding risk in comparison to SCT.

The Reemergence of Ketamine for Treatment in Critically Ill Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence and discuss the risks and clinical relevance of ketamine for the treatment of various disease states impacting the adult critically ill population. DATA SOURCES: A literature review was performed using PubMed evaluating primary literature published until August 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Case reports, observational studies (cohort, case-control), and randomized controlled trials involving patients 18 years and older in a nonperioperative setting using either IV or intramuscular ketamine were included for analysis. Uses of ketamine discussed focused on critically ill patients in the ICU and emergency department settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Included studies were evaluated for dosing, outcomes, and adverse effects of ketamine. For each study, the design, population, intervention, investigated outcomes, and results were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The evidence was organized according to use of ketamine, which included pain, sedation, status asthmaticus, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, status epilepticus, and acute behavioral psychologic disturbances. Evaluation of the evidence was based on the included primary literature along with any related guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Ketamine has suggested potential benefit in several disease states impacting critically ill patients including pain, alcohol withdrawal syndrome, status epilepticus, and acute agitation. Further supporting evidence is needed to validate its use in the setting of critical illness.