Search

Background: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI., Methods: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization., Results: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446)., Conclusions: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov/study/NCT02270242., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Dr Spirito received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Angiolillo declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and Vectura; D.J.A. also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Boston Scientific. Dr Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen. Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, the PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in Inference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. Dr Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Kastrati is an inventor in a patent application related to drug-eluting stent technology; he also serves in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the TARGET IV trial sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, USA. Dr Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr Steg received research grant from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi and Servier; speaking or consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer/Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier. Dr. Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharma, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atricure, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Novartis, WebMD; Equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA Associate Editor; Faculty CRF (no fee). The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the standard antithrombotic treatment after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Several trials have challenged guideline-recommended DAPT after PCI by testing the relative clinical effect of an aspirin-free antiplatelet approach-consisting of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course (mostly 1-3 months) of DAPT-among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Overall, these studies have shown P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short DAPT to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of bleeding without an increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with continued DAPT. Moreover, the effects of the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without prior DAPT or following a very short course of DAPT after PCI are being investigated in emerging studies, of which one has recently reported unfavourable efficacy results associated with the aspirin-free approach compared with conventional DAPT. Finally, P2Y12 inhibitor alone has been compared with aspirin alone as chronic therapy after DAPT discontinuation, thus challenging the historical role of aspirin as a standard of care for secondary prevention following PCI. A thorough understanding of study designs, populations, treatments, results, and limitations of trials testing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. DAPT or vs. aspirin is required to consider adopting this treatment in clinical practice. This review addresses the use of aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for OAC, providing an overview of clinical evidence, guideline indications, practical implications, ongoing issues, and future perspectives., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12 months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p = 0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p = 0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p = 0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Spirito received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Bern, Switzerland). Dr. Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca (Cambridge, United Kingdom). Dr. Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharmacia, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atricure, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi-Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Novartis, WebMD; Equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA Associate Editor; Faculty CRF (no fee). Dr. Kastrati is an inventor in a patent application related to drug-eluting stent technology; he also serves in the Data and Safety Monitoring Board of the TARGET IV trial sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York. Dr. Angiolillo declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly (Gilead), Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer (New York, New York), Sanofi and Vectura; D.J.A. also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Boston Scientific Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr. Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, the PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare (Little Chalfont, United Kingdom); holds equity in Inference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. The remining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nearly 20% of patients on ticagrelor experience dyspnea, which may lead to treatment discontinuation in up to one-third of cases., Objectives: The authors sought to evaluate the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The occurrence of dyspnea associated with ticagrelor discontinuation was evaluated among all patients enrolled in the trial. A landmark analysis was performed at 3 months after PCI, that is, the time of randomization. Predictors of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation were obtained from multivariable Cox regression with stepwise selection of candidate variables., Results: The incidence of dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation was 6.4% and 9.1% at 3 and 15 months after PCI, respectively. Independent predictors included Asian race (lower risk), smoking, prior PCI, hypercholesterolemia, prior coronary artery bypass, peripheral artery disease, obesity, and older age. Among 179 patients who discontinued ticagrelor because of dyspnea after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of subsequent ischemic events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (5.0% vs 7.1%; P = 0.566)., Conclusions: In the TWILIGHT trial, dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation occurred in almost 1 in 10 patients and tended to occur earlier rather than late after PCI. Several demographic and clinical conditions predicted its occurrence, and their assessment may help identify subjects at risk for therapy nonadherence., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received institutional research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Dangas has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Biosensors; has received advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; and has held stock in Medtronic. Dr Cohen has received institutional grant support and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr Gibson has received grant support from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Portola Pharmaceuticals, The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon Corporation, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in inference; and serves as chief executive officer of Baim Institute, receiving grant support, paid to Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. Dr Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr Mehta has received grant support from and serves on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr Ohman has received consulting fees from 3D Communications, Abiomed, ACI Clinical, Biotie, Cara Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Faculty Connection, Imbria, Impulse Medical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor; and has received grant support from Abiomed, Chiesi, and Portola. Dr Escaned has received consulting fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr Steg has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Amarin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca; has received grant support from Bayer/Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, Amarin, and Servier; has received lecture fees from Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Amgen, and AstraZeneca; has received fees for serving on steering, critical event, or data monitoring committees from Bayer/Janssen, Amarin, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis, Servier, and Idorsia; and has received fees for serving as cochair of trials from Sanofi and chair of a registry from Servier. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, Zoll; personal fees from ACC, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, SCAI; institutional consulting fees from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips; and holds equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); and has served on a scientific advisory board for AMA and Biosensors (spouse). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention), among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), ticagrelor monotherapy vs continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor after completing a 3-month course of DAPT was associated with reduced bleeding, without an increase in ischemic events., Objectives: This investigation sought to study the clinical benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy vs DAPT by simultaneously modeling its associated potential bleeding benefits and ischemic harms on an individual patient basis., Methods: Multivariable Cox regression models for: 1) Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 (BARC-2/3/5); and 2) cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE]) were developed using stepwise forward variable selection. The coefficients in the BARC-2/3/5 and MACCE models were used to calculate bleeding and ischemic risk scores, respectively, for each patient (excluding the coefficient for randomized treatment)., Results: In the total study group (N = 7,119), BARC-2/3/5 occurred in 391 (5.5%) patients, and MACCE occurred in 258 (3.6%). There was a consistent reduction in bleeding events associated with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT across both bleeding and ischemic risk strata (P interaction = 0.54 and 0.11, respectively). Importantly, this benefit associated with ticagrelor monotherapy was not offset by an increase in MACCE at any level of bleeding or ischemic risk., Conclusions: Three months after PCI, discontinuing aspirin and maintaining ticagrelor monotherapy reduces bleeding in both higher-bleeding risk and lower-bleeding risk patients compared with continued DAPT. This benefit does not appear to be offset by greater ischemic risk. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr Mendieta has received the post–Cardiology Residency Training Fellowship of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC)-National Center of Cardiovascular Investigations (CNIC) Cardiojoven 2020. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura; and has received institutional grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Briguori has received grants from Mount Sinai during the conduct of the study. Dr Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Collier has served on data monitoring committees sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, Devax, Infraredx, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Zoll. Dr Dangas has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Biosensors; has received advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; and has held stock in Medtronic. Dr Escaned has received personal fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr Huber has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr Krucoff has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Celonova, Medtronic, and OrbusNeich. Dr Kunadian has received personal fees or honoraria from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Abbott, Amgen, and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr Moliterno has received institutional support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the TWILIGHT trial; and has served on data safety and monitoring boards in trials organized by Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Ohman has received grants from Chiesi and Portola; and has received personal fees from Cytokinetics, Abiomed, Pfizer, 3D Communications, ACI Clinical, Biotie, Cara Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Faculty Connection, Imbria, Impulse Medical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, and Otsuka outside the submitted work. Dr Sharma has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems; and has served on an advisory board for Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. Dr Steg has received grant support from Bayer/Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, Amarin, and Servier; has received fees for serving on a steering committee or executive steering committee from Bayer/Janssen, Amarin, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Idorsia; has received lecture fees from Merck, Sanofi, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca; has received fees for serving as co-chair of trials from Sanofi; has received consulting fees from Sanofi, Amarin, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca; has received fees for serving on critical event committees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has received fees for serving as chair of a data monitoring committee from Servier; and has received fees for serving as chair of a registry from Servier. Dr Pocock has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. Dr Gibson has received grant support from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Portola Pharmaceuticals, the Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon Corporation, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; has held equity in inference in Baim Institute; has served as chief executive officer of Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, European Center for Cardiovascular Research, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; has held equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and has served on scientific advisory boards for and American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) may be associated with better outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to other current-generation limus-eluting stents (LES)., Aims: To compare BP-BES with other current-generation LES in ACS patients undergoing PCI., Methods: We pooled individual data of Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS patients from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). The BP-BES groups consisted mostly of GLASSY patients, while the control group (other current-generation LES) included exclusively TWILIGHT patients. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis; the key secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF). To account for trial design differences, outcomes were assessed at 3 months (short-term) and between 3 and 12 months (long-term) after PCI and subsequently pooled to estimate the 12-month hazards., Results: Of 7107 and 6053 NSTE-ACS patients included in the short- and long-term analysis, 32.7% and 36.5% received a BP-BES, respectively. Risk of MACE associated with BP-BES versus other LES was similar at short-term (1.1% vs 1.3%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.53-1.38), lower at long-term (1.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.72), and lower in the entire 12-month period (pooled adjusted HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.45-0.82). The cumulative 12-month risk of TVF was reduced with BP-BES (adjusted HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38-0.70)., Conclusion: BP-BES was associated with lower 12-month risks of MACE and TVF compared to other current generation LES among NSTE-ACS patients treated with abbreviated or standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These non-randomized findings are hypothesis-generating., Condensed Abstract: Differences in clinical outcomes may exist between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and other current-generation limus-eluting stent (LES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We pooled individual data of about 7000 Non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with ticagrelor with or without aspirin from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). BP-BES patients derived very largely from GLASSY and other LES patients from TWILIGHT. In this population, BP-BES compared to other current generation LES, were associated with a lower 12-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and target-vessel failure., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are often older and present with multiple comorbidities. Ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as an effective bleeding-avoidance strategy among high-risk patients., Aims: We aimed to examine the effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin in prior CABG patients undergoing PCI within the TWILIGHT trial., Methods: After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were randomised to either aspirin or placebo, in addition to ticagrelor, for 12 months and compared by prior CABG status. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke., Results: Out of 7,119 patients, a total of 703 (10.8%) patients had prior CABG within the randomised cohort. Prior CABG patients had more comorbidities and a higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding and death, MI or stroke at 1 year after randomisation, compared with patients without prior CABG. Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with significantly less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding among prior CABG patients compared with DAPT (4.9% vs 9.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.90; p interaction =0.676) and similar rates of death, MI or stroke (10.0% vs 8.7%, HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.87; p interaction =0.484). When comparing target vessel type, treatment effects were consistent among graft- and native-vessel interventions., Conclusions: In high-risk patients with prior CABG, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced bleeding without compromising ischaemic outcomes compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin.

Purpose of Review: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) often occur in individuals with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Our goal was to describe the prevalence, clinical characteristics, prognosis, and treatment strategies in this group of patients., Recent Findings: Studies demonstrate that both acute and long-term major adverse cardiovascular outcomes are increased in patients with ACS and prior CABG compared to those without CABG. Much of this risk is attributed to the greater comorbid conditions present in patients with prior CABG. Data regarding optimal management of ACS in patients with prior CABG are limited, but most observational studies favor an early invasive approach for treatment. Native vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), if feasible, is generally preferred to bypass graft PCI. Patients with ACS and prior CABG represent a high-risk group of individuals, and implementing optimal preventive and treatment strategies are critically important to reduce the risk., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial., Methods: The TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m 2 ], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m 2 ], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 ]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol., Results: Among 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI., Conclusions: Among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Cohen has received grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received grant support, paid to his institution, from Boston Scientific. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical, outside the present work; and has received research grants to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr Gurbel has received grant support and consulting fees from Bayer, Medicure, US WorldMeds, and Merck; has received grant support from Instrumentation Laboratory, Haemonetics, Amgen, Idorsia, Janssen, and Ionis; and holds patent 9188597 on detection of restenosis risk in patients receiving stents by measuring the characteristics of blood clotting, including measurement of maximum thrombin-induced clot strength. Dr Hamm has received lecture and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr Mehta has received grant support from and has served on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr Ohman has received consulting fees from 3D Communications, ACI Clinical, Biotie, Cara Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, Faculty Connection, Imbria, Impulse Medical, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, and XyloCor; has received grant support and consulting fees from Abiomed; and has received grant support from Chiesi and Portola. Dr Oldroyd has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Steg has received grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Bayer/Janssen; has received grant support and lecture fees from Merck; has received grant support, fees for serving as co-chair of trials, consulting fees, and lecture fees from Sanofi; has received grant support, fees for serving on an executive steering committee, and consulting fees from Amarin; has received consulting and lecture fees from Amgen; has received consulting fees, lecture fees, and fees for serving on a critical event committee from Bristol Myers Squibb; has received fees for serving on an executive steering committee from Boehringer Ingelheim; has received fees for serving on a critical event committee from Pfizer; has received fees for serving on a steering committee and consulting fees from Novartis; has received consulting fees from Regeneron, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk; has received consulting and lecture fees from AstraZeneca; has received grant support, fees for serving as chair of a data monitoring committee, and fees for serving as chair of a registry from Servier; and has received fees for serving on a steering committee from Idorsia. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, the PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in Inference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb and Astra Zeneca. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and is a scientific advisory board member for the American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of ticagrelor monotherapy in the very high risk cohort of patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin post-PCI, event-free patients were randomized to either aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor for 12 months. Those with available information on DM and CKD status were included in this subanalysis and were stratified by the presence or absence of either condition: 3391 (54.1%) had neither DM nor CKD (DM-/CKD-), 1822 (29.0%) had DM only (DM+/CKD-), 561 (8.9%) had CKD only (DM-/CKD+), and 8.0% had both DM and CKD (DM+/CKD+). The incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not differ according to DM/CKD status (P-trend = 0.13), but there was a significant increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (P-trend &lt; 0.001) as well as the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P-trend &lt; 0.001). Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin across all four groups, including DM+/CKD+ patients with respect to BARC 2-5 [4.5% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-1.01] as well as BARC 3-5 (0.8% vs. 5.3%; HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.53) bleeding, with no evidence of heterogeneity. The risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between treatment arms across all groups., Conclusion: Irrespective of the presence of DM, CKD, and their combination, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: In the TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was shown to be a safe bleeding avoidance strategy in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES)., Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after three-month DAPT in patients undergoing PCI, according to DES type., Methods: In the current sub-analysis from TWILIGHT, patients were stratified into three groups based on DES type: durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES), durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES), and biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). Bleeding and ischaemic outcomes were assessed at one year after randomisation., Results: Out of 5,769 patients, 3,014 (52.2%) had DP-EES, 1,350 (23.4%) had DP-ZES and 1,405 (24.4%) had BP-DES. Compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy had significantly lower BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding compared with DAPT; DP-EES (3.8% vs 6.7%; HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78), DP-ZES (4.6% vs 6.9%; HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.42-1.04) and BP-DES (4.2% vs 7.9%; HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; p interaction =0.76). Ticagrelor monotherapy resulted in similar rates of death, MI, or stroke: DP-EES (4.2% vs 4.3%; HR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68-1.37); DP-ZES (4.1% vs 3.1%; HR 1.32; 95% CI: 0.75-2.33); BP-DES (3.9% vs 4.2%; HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.54-1.55; p interaction =0.60). In both unadjusted and covariate-adjusted analyses, DES type was not associated with any differences in ischaemic or bleeding complications., Conclusions: As compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy after a short DAPT duration lowered bleeding complications without increasing the ischaemic risk, irrespective of DES type. We observed no significant differences among DES types.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention., Background: Patients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated., Methods: In this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization., Results: A total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P interaction  = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P interaction  = 0.52)., Conclusions: Ticagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was conducted with support from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Dr Baber has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr Sharma has received Speakers Bureau fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr Dangas has received personal fees from Biosensors and Philips. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St Jude Medical, outside the present work; and has received research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Stefanini has received a research grant from Boston Scientific; and has received speaker and consulting fees from Bayer, Braun, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo and GADA, outside the submitted work. Dr Gibson has received grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Janssen, and CSL Behring; has received personal fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca (during the conduct of the study), Angel Medical Corporation, The Medicines Company, the Boston Clinical Research Institute, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, Gilead Sciences, WebMD, UpToDate in Cardiovascular Medicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Somahlution, Vereseon, Boston Scientific, the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Medtelligence, Microport, PERT Consortium, Caladrius Biosciences, CeleCor Therapeutics, Thrombolytic Science, Eidos Therapeutics, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Microdrop, MD Magazine, MJ Health, Samsung, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Revance Therapeutics, Pfizer, GenTech, CytoSorbents, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Syneos Health, and Amarin; has received other compensation from nference, Dyad Medical, and Absolutys, and PhaseBio; has received nonfinancial support from the Baim Institute; and has received grants from the SCAD Alliance, outside the submitted work. Dr Mehran has received institutional grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo Inc, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Janssen, Scientific Affairs, Sanofi, and Siemens Medical Solutions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott Laboratories and Bristol Myers Squibb; and is an advisory board member (funding paid to the institution) for Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: In this prespecified subanalysis of the TWILIGHT trial, we evaluated the treatment effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin according to renal function. The trial enrolled patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation who fulfilled at least one clinical and one angiographic high-risk criterion. Chronic kidney disease, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, was a clinical study entry criterion. Following a 3-month period of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo on top of ticagrelor for an additional 12 months. Of the 6835 patients randomized and with available eGFR at baseline, 1111 (16.3%) had CKD. Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in both patients with [4.6% vs. 9.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.80] and without (4.0% vs. 6.7%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75; Pinteraction = 0.508) CKD, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the former group. Rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between the two randomized groups irrespective of the presence (7.9% vs. 5.7%; HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.88-2.22) or absence of (3.2% vs. 3.6%; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68-1.20; Pinteraction = 0.111) CKD., Conclusion: Among CKD patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population., Methods and Results: This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.77) with similar relative (Pinteraction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [-5.1% vs. -2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) -2.8%, 95% CI -6.4% to 0.8%, P = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (-3.5% vs. -0.5%; difference in ARDs -3.0%, 95% CI -5.2% to -0.8%, P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status., Conclusions: Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Importance: Shortened dual antiplatelet therapy followed by potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy reduces bleeding without increasing ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objective: To explore sex differences and evaluate the association of sex with outcomes among patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy vs ticagrelor plus aspirin., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of TWILIGHT, an investigator-initiated, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at 187 sites across 11 countries. Study participants included patients who underwent successful PCI with drug-eluting stents, were planned for discharge with ticagrelor plus aspirin, and who had at least 1 clinical and at least 1 angiographic feature associated with high risk of ischemic or bleeding events. Data were analyzed from May to July 2020., Interventions: At 3 months after PCI, patients adherent to ticagrelor and aspirin without major adverse event were randomized to either aspirin or placebo for an additional 12 months along with ticagrelor., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding at 12 months after randomization. The primary ischemic end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Results: Of 9006 enrolled patients, 7119 underwent randomization (mean [SD] age, 63.9 [10.2] years; 5421 [76.1%] men). Women were older (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [9.6] years in women vs 63.4 [10.3] years in men) with higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease (347 women [21.2%] vs 764 men [14.7%]). The primary bleeding end point occurred more often in women than men (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.64; P = .01). After multivariate adjustment, incremental bleeding risk associated with female sex was no longer significant (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.52; P = .12). Ischemic end points were similar between sexes. Ticagrelor plus placebo vs ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with lower risk of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in women (adjusted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92; P = .02) and men (adjusted HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73; P < .001; P for interaction = .69). Ischemic end points were similar between treatment groups in both sexes., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the higher bleeding risk in women compared with men was mostly attributable to baseline differences, whereas ischemic events were similar between sexes. In this high-risk PCI population, the benefits of early aspirin withdrawal with continuation of ticagrelor were generally comparable in women and men., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02270242.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of age on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: As the risk for bleeding and ischemic complications after PCI increases with age, the authors conducted a pre-specified analysis of the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial to evaluate the possible benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy according to age., Methods: The TWILIGHT trial enrolled patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents who fulfilled at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk criterion. Age ≥65 years was a clinical entry criterion. After 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, event-free patients were randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo or ticagrelor plus aspirin for an additional 12 months. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Results: A total of 3,113 patients (47.7%) were ≥65 years of age. At 1 year after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.5% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.71) without increasing ischemic events (4.2% vs. 4.4%; hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.35) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients ≥65 years of age. These findings were consistent in patients <65 years of age with respect to the primary (p interaction  = 0.62) and key secondary (p interaction  = 0.77) endpoints and across different age categories., Conclusions: A strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy following 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin without an increase in ischemic events, irrespective of age., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has participated in review activities for CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; has received institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Baber has received speaking honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr. Mehta has received grant support from and serving on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr. Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora. Dr. Krucoff has received consulting fees or honoraria and research grants from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CeloNova, Medtronic, and OrbusNeich. Dr. Gibson has received research grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moliterno has received grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in nference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Weisz has received grant support and advisory board fees from and holds equity in Corindus; has received advisory board fees from and holds equity in Filterlex; serves on an advisory board for and holds options in Trisol; and has received grant support from Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, and RenalGuard. Dr. Oldroyd has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Sharma has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Mehran reports grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco dba PLx Pharma, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs), and Janssen Scientific Affairs; has received other compensation from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Bristol Myers Squibb, Claret Medical, Elixir Medical, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano, and Watermark Research Partners; and has received nonfinancial support and other compensation from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y 12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

The University of Kentucky College of Medicine and Albert B. Chandler Hospital opened over 50 years ago to serve Kentucky. After initial growth and expansion, both were struggling clinically, academically, and financially in the early 2000s. Difficulties were apparent in cardiovascular (CV) services, which captured only 11% of the regional patients hospitalized for cardiac disease. Over the next 15 years, CV services dynamically transformed to become the leading provider with a large network of regional partners, garnering 42% of market share. This article describes strategic plans and initiatives leading to clinical and academic growth. Future value-based initiatives are also described.

Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on clinically relevant bleeding and major ischaemic events in relation to clinical presentation with and without non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES)., Methods and Results: We conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis of The Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial, which enrolled 9006 patients with high-risk features undergoing PCI with DES. After 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin, 7119 adherent and event-free patients were randomized in a double-blind manner to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus aspirin for 12 months. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding while the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke was the key secondary outcome. Among patients with NSTE-ACS (n = 4614), ticagrelor monotherapy reduced BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding by 53% [3.6% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.61; P < 0.001) and in stable patients (n = 2503) by 24% (4.8% vs. 6.2%; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06; P = 0.11; nominal Pint = 0.03). Rates of all-cause death, MI, or stroke among those with (4.3% vs. 4.4%; HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74-1.28; P = 0.84) and without (3.1% vs. 3.2%; HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.49; P = 0.85) NSTE-ACS were similar between treatment arms irrespective of clinical presentation (Pint = 0.96)., Conclusion: Among patients with or without NSTE-ACS who have completed an initial 3-month course of DAPT following PCI with DES, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced clinically meaningful bleeding events without increasing ischaemic risk as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy with respect to bleeding events were more pronounced in patients with NSTE-ACS., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02270242., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether the underlying risk of bleeding influences the associations between patterns of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation and adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown., Methods: Patients enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter PARIS registry (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Anti-Platelet Regimens in Stented Patients) were categorized according to their risk of bleeding using the PARIS bleeding risk score. We evaluated the incidence, patterns, and association between modes of DAPT cessation and outcomes across bleeding risk groups. Modes of DAPT cessations were defined as physician-guided DAPT discontinuation, brief interruption (<14 days) or disruption for bleeding, or noncompliance. The primary end point of interest was major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite-probable stent thrombosis., Results: From a total of 5018 patients, 513 (10.2%) were classified as high, 2058 (41.0%) as intermediate, and 2447 (48.8%) as low risk for bleeding. High bleeding risk (HBR) patients were older and had greater prevalence of comorbidities. Compared with non-HBR, HBR patients had higher rates of both ischemic and bleeding events. The cumulative incidence of DAPT cessation was higher in HBR patients, mostly driven by physician-guided discontinuation and disruption. Of note, DAPT disruption occurred in 17.7%, 10.4%, and 7.8% at 1 year and 22.0%, 15.1%, and 12.0% at 2 years ( P <0.0001) in high, intermediate, and low bleeding risk groups, respectively. Physician-guided DAPT discontinuation was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events in both HBR and non-HBR patients, while DAPT disruption was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events across all bleeding risk groups. There was no interaction between bleeding risk status and clinical outcomes for any cessation mode., Conclusions: Patients at HBR remain at higher risk of adverse events. Disruption of DAPT is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events irrespective of the underlying bleeding risk. Physician-guided discontinuation of DAPT appears to be safe, irrespective of HBR.

Background: Monotherapy with a P2Y 12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points., Results: We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, -0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority)., Conclusions: Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Data on geographical variations in dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation and the impact on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. We sought to evaluate geographical patterns of DAPT cessation and associated outcomes in patients undergoing PCI in the United States versus Europe., Methods: Analyzing data from the PARIS registry, we studied 3,660 U.S. patients (72.9%) and 1,358 European patients (27.1%) that underwent PCI with stent implantation. DAPT cessation was classified as physician-recommended discontinuation, interruption (< 14 days), or disruption due to bleeding or noncompliance. The primary endpoint was 2-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of cardiac death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization., Results: Cardiovascular risk factors were more common in the United States, whereas procedural complexity was greater in Europe. The incidence of 2-year DAPT discontinuation was significantly lower in U.S. versus European patients (30.7% vs. 65.6%; p  < 0.001); however, rates of interruption (13.7% vs. 1.5%, p  < 0.001) and disruption (17.7% vs. 5.1%, p  < 0.001) were higher. DAPT discontinuation was associated with lower adjusted risk, whereas DAPT disruption was associated with greater risk for 2-year MACE, without interaction by region. After adjustment for baseline characteristics and DAPT cessation, 2-year MACE risk was not statistically different between regions (10.3% for Europe vs. 11.9% for U.S., adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.01, p  = 0.065)., Conclusion: DAPT cessation patterns, along with clinical and angiographic risk, vary substantially between PCI patients in the U.S. versus Europe. Despite such differences, cardiovascular risk associated with DAPT cessation remains uniform., Competing Interests: D.C. has received research grant support from Eli Lilly and Astra Zeneca, consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, and speaking honoraria from Astra Zeneca. T.H. has received research grant support from Eli Lilly & Company and Daiichi-Sankyo. G.D. has received consulting fees and honoraria from Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Covidien, The Medicines Company, Merck, CSL Behring, AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Abbott, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Osprey Medical, and GE Healthcare; and research grant support from Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Eli Lilly & Company/Daiichi-Sankyo. M.G. has received research grant support from Angel Medical Corporation, Atrium Medical Systems, Bayer Corporation, Ikaria, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson Corporation, Lantheus Medical Imaging, Merck & Company, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Stealth Peptides, St. Jude Medical, Volcano Corporation, and Walk Vascular; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer Corporation, CRF, Consensus Medical Communications, CSL Behring, Cytori Therapeutics, Eli Lilly & Company/Daiichi Sankyo, Exeter Group, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson Corporation, Ortho McNeil, St. Jude Medical, and The Medicines Company; and royalty fees from UpToDate in Cardiovascular Medicine. D.M. has received institutional research grant support from AstraZeneca. M.K. has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, OrbusNeich, Angelmed, Volcano, Biosensors, Svelte, OrbusNeich, Medtronic, and Terumo; and research grant support from Abbott, Terumo, Angelmed, Ikaria, OrbusNeich, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (CSI), Eli Lilly & Company, and Medtronic. A.C. has received consulting fees and honoraria from Carbostent and Implantable Devices (CID); and other fees from Direct Flow Medical. A.K. serves on the speaker's bureau of the American College of Cardiology; and has received consulting fees from WebMD. P.G.S. discloses the following relationship: research grant from Bayer, Merck, Sanofi, and Servier, speaking or consulting fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer/Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier, received personal fees from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Medtronic, Servier, Janssen, CSL Behring, and Regeneron; grants and personal fees from Sanofi; and personal fees and nonfinancial support from The Medicines Company, outside the submitted work. R.M. has received institutional research grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers-Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has served as a consultant for Abbott Vascular, American College of Cardiology, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, CardioKinetix, CSL Behring, Medscape, Shanghai Bracco Sine Pharmaceutical, and Spectranetics; has served on the advisory board for Bristol Myers-Squibb; has received institutional advisory board funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb; has received institutional funding from Claret Medical; owns equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical; has served on the executive committee for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Osprey Medical; has served on the data safety monitoring board for Watermark Research Partners; and has a spouse who has served as a consultant for Abiomed and The Medicines Company., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The availability of different P2Y 12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) with varying levels of potency has enabled physicians to contemplate individualized treatment regimens, which may include escalation or de-escalation of P2Y 12 -inhibiting therapy. Indeed, individualized and alternative DAPT strategies may be chosen according to the clinical setting (stable coronary artery disease vs. acute coronary syndrome), the stage of the disease (early- vs. long-term treatment), and patient risk for ischemic and bleeding complications. A tailored DAPT approach may be potentially guided by platelet function testing (PFT) or genetic testing. Although the routine use of PFT or genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients is not recommended, recent data have led to an update in guideline recommendations that allow considering selective use of PFT for DAPT de-escalation. However, guidelines do not expand on when to implement the selective use of such assays into decision making for personalized treatment approaches. Therefore, an international expert consensus group of key leaders from North America, Asia, and Europe with expertise in the field of antiplatelet treatment was convened. This document updates 2 prior consensus papers on this topic and summarizes the contemporary updated expert consensus recommendations for the selective use of PFT or genotyping in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The disruption of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) due to non-compliance or bleeding is known to significantly increase the risk of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is currently unknown if there are differences in the predictors and clinical impact of disruption due to non-compliance compared with bleeding., Methods: The patterns of non-adherence to antiplatelet regimens in stented patients (PARIS) registry was an international, multicenter prospective study of PCI patients discharged on DAPT (aspirin + a P2Y 12 receptor). We analyzed the incidence, patient characteristics, predictors, and outcomes in patients with DAPT disruption due to non-compliance as compared to DAPT disruption due to bleeding in the PARIS registry. Predictors of non-recommended disruption and bleeding disruption were assessed using logistic regression. Risks associated with disruption on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were analyzed using time-updated Cox regression over 2-year follow-up., Results: Out of 5018 patients, the rate of non-compliant DAPT disruption was 1.6% at 30 days (n = 79), 6.5% at 12 months (n = 328), and 9.1% at 2 years from PCI (n = 457). The rate of bleeding DAPT disruption was 0.6% at 30 days (n = 32), 3.1% at 12 months (n = 156), and 4.6% at 2 years (n = 229). Multivariate predictors of non-compliant disruption included female gender, history of smoking, acute coronary syndrome, and US patients which were associated with greater risk; and dyslipidemia and discharge PPI which were associated with lower risk. Multivariate predictors of bleeding disruption included older age, prior MI, and discharge warfarin which were associated with greater risk; and US region and intervention to the LAD which were associated with lower risk. Non-compliant disruption was associated with a significantly greater risk for MACE (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17-2.54, p = 0.006) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (HR 2.93, 95% CI 1.85-4.65, p < 0.001). Bleeding disruption was associated with a significantly greater risk for all-cause death (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.22-3.08, p = 0.005)., Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 10 patients disrupts DAPT due to non-compliance and 1 in 20 disrupts DAPT due to bleeding. Disruption due to non-compliance resulted in higher risk for ischemic events and disruption due to bleeding had higher subsequent mortality. These data warrant efforts to focus on patient education in those at high risk of non-compliance.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the association between dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation and cardiovascular risk after percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to age., Background: Examination of outcomes by age after percutaneous coronary intervention is relevant given the aging population., Methods: Two-year clinical outcomes, incidence, and effect of DAPT cessation on outcomes were compared by ages ≤55, 56 to 74, and ≥75 years from the PARIS (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Antiplatelet Regimens in Stented Patients) registry. DAPT cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation, interruption for surgery, and disruption (from noncompliance or bleeding). Clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), a secondary restrictive definition of MACE (MACE2) excluding target lesion revascularization, and bleeding., Results: A total of 1,192 patients (24%) were ≤55 years, 2,869 (57%) were 56 to 74 years, and 957 (19%) were ≥75 years of age. Patients ≥75 years of age had higher DAPT cessation rates and increased risk for MACE2, death, cardiac death, and bleeding compared with younger patients. Discontinuation and interruption were not associated with increased cardiovascular risk across age groups, whereas disruption was associated with increased risk for MACE and MACE2 in younger patients but not in patients ≥75 years of age (p for trend <0.05)., Conclusions: Nonadherence and outcomes vary by age, with patients ≥75 years having the highest DAPT cessation rates. We observed no association between outcomes and DAPT cessation in patients ≥75 years, whereas discontinuation was associated with lower MACE rates and disruption with increased MACE rates in patients <75 years., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anemia is a well-recognized risk factor for both bleeding and ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to determine the impact of baseline anemia on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation patterns ≤2 years after PCI and the subsequent risk of clinical adverse events., Methods and Results: PARIS (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Dual Anti-Platelet Regimen in Stented Patients) was a prospective multicenter observational registry of PCI-treated patients (n=5018). Anemia was defined as baseline Hb (hemoglobin) <12 g/dL for men and <11 g/dL for women. DAPT cessation modes included physician-recommended discontinuation, temporary interruption (≤14 days), and disruption due to bleeding or noncompliance. The primary end point was 2-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. We identified 824 (18%) anemic and 4194 (82%) nonanemic patients. Anemic patients were older and had a higher rate of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and prior PCI. DAPT interruption and disruption were significantly more common in anemic patients throughout 2 years after PCI, whereas physician-recommended discontinuation occurred more often in anemic patients during the first year after PCI and in nonanemic patients during the second year. The 2-year adjusted risks of MACE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events were significantly higher in anemic patients. Compared with uninterrupted DAPT, disruption, but not interruption and physician-recommended discontinuation, was associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction in nonanemic patients and a higher risk of both myocardial infarction and MACE in anemic patients. There was no significant interaction between anemia and risk of clinical outcomes associated with each DAPT cessation mode., Conclusions: Baseline anemia was associated with a significantly higher adjusted risk of MACE and major bleeding. Physicians more frequently recommend DAPT discontinuation to anemic patients during the first year, and to nonanemic patients during the second year after PCI. DAPT disruption was associated with a higher risk of MACE outcomes.

The aim of this study was to examine the patterns and clinical impact of differing modes of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with and without acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The PARIS (patterns of nonadherence to antiplatelet regimens in stented patients) registry was a multicenter study of 5,018 patients who underwent PCI. DAPT cessation was categorized as physician-recommended discontinuation, interruption, or disruption. Overall rates of 2-year DAPT discontinuation did not differ between non-ACS and ACS patients (38.8% vs 37.2%, p = 0.252). ACS patients were less likely to interrupt DAPT (8.5% vs 10.7% p<0.001), but were more likely to disrupt DAPT (16.4% vs 11.9%, p<0001). Adverse events after DAPT cessation were highest after disruption, intermediate with discontinuation, and lowest with interruption across both groups. Disruption of DAPT predicted MACE in both ACS patients (hazard ratio [HR] 2.89 [1.88 to 4.45; p<0.001]) and non-ACS patients (HR 2.08 [1.29 to 3.35; p = 0.002]). Interruption of DAPT predicated MACE in ACS patients (HR 2.72 [1.35 to 5.48]) but not in non-ACS patients (HR 0.44 [0.14 to 1.40]; p interaction ≤0.01). In conclusion, the incidence of DAPT cessation mode differs by presentation with or without ACS. Physician guided DAPT discontinuation was the most common mode of DAPT cessation and appears to be safe across both groups. There were higher rates of adverse events associated with the interruption of DAPT in ACS patients., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)