Search

Background: In patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, or stroke compared with low-dose aspirin alone, but at an increased risk of major bleeding.Objectives: The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI within the prior 3 years.Methods: The authors performed a prospective economic substudy alongside the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial, which randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA. Medical resource use data were collected over a median 33-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from the U.S. health care system perspective. In-trial data relating to survival, utility, and costs were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily).Results: Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% confidence interval for difference -$303 to $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930; p < 0.001). In-trial quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar (2.28 vs. 2.27; p = 0.34). Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and incremental costs of $7,435, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $94,917/QALY gained. Several high-risk groups had more favorable ICERs, including patients with >1 prior MI, multivessel disease, diabetes, renal dysfunction (all with ICERs $50,000 to $70,000/QALY gained), patients age <75 years (ICER = $44,779/QALY gained), and patients with peripheral artery disease (ICER = $13,427/QALY gained).Conclusions: For patients with a history of MI >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiveness ratio suggesting intermediate value based on current guidelines. Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients in several recognized high-risk subgroups. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: First-generation drug-eluting coronary stents (DES) were introduced in 2003 to 2004, and their use resulted in a considerable reduction in the development of in-stent restenosis at the cost of an increased risk of late stent thromboses.Objectives: This study followed clinical outcomes of patients included in a large randomized trial for 10 years to enable detection of late changes in annual event rates that could necessitate medical attention.Methods: A total of 2,098 unselected all-comer patients (50% with acute coronary syndrome) were randomly assigned to have a first-generation DES implanted. This study recorded the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) assessed as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Stent thromboses were also assessed.Results: Of the 2,098 unselected patients, 73.1% were still alive after 10 years. During the follow-up period, MACE occurred in 346 (32.5%) in the group receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent and in 342 (33.1%) in the group receiving a paclitaxel-eluting stent (hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.83 to 1.11; p = 0.60), with a steady annual rate of 2.6% after the first year. Definite, probable, and possible stent thrombosis appeared in 279 patients (13.3%), with no difference between stent types and with a steady annual rate of 1.3% after the first year.Conclusions: Among the surviving patients, the long-term annual MACE rate and the stent thrombosis rate appeared constant for both stent types, with no apparent late changes. Although there is no need for extraordinary medical attention for these patients, the absence of declines in annual event rates calls for continuous surveillance. (Danish Organization on Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome II [SORT OUT II]; NCT00388934). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) improve outcome in the setting of post-myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure (HF).Objectives: The study sought to assess the benefit of an early MRA regimen in acute MI irrespective of the presence of HF or left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.Methods: We randomized 1,603 patients to receive an MRA regimen with a single intravenous bolus of potassium canrenoate (200 mg) followed by oral spironolactone (25 mg once daily) for 6 months in addition to standard therapy or standard therapy alone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, significant ventricular arrhythmia, indication for implantable defibrillator, or new or worsening HF at 6-month follow-up. Key secondary/safety outcomes included death and other individual components of the primary outcome and rates of hyperkalemia at 6 months.Results: The primary outcome occurred in 95 (11.8%) and 98 (12.2%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.28). Death occurred in 11 (1.4%) and 17 (2.1%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.38). In a non-pre-specified exploratory analysis, the odds of death were reduced in the treatment group (3 [0.5%] vs. 15 [2.4%]; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.70) in the subgroup of ST-segment elevation MI (n = 1,229), but not in non-ST-segment elevation MI (p for interaction = 0.01). Hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l(-1) occurred in 3% and 0.2% of patients in the treatment and standard therapy groups, respectively (p < 0.0001).Conclusions: The study failed to show the benefit of early MRA use in addition to standard therapy in patients admitted for MI. (Aldosterone Lethal effects Blockade in Acute myocardial infarction Treated with or without Reperfusion to improve Outcome and Survival at Six months follow-up; NCT01059136). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether cyclosporine A (CsA) has beneficial effects in reperfused myocardial infarction (MI) is debated.Objectives: This study investigated whether CsA improved ST-segment resolution in a randomized, multicenter phase II study.Methods: The authors randomly assigned 410 patients from 31 cardiac care units, age 63 ± 12 years, with large ST-segment elevation MI within 6 h of symptom onset, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade 0 to 1 in the infarct-related artery, and committed to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, to 2.5 mg/kg intravenous CsA (n = 207) or control (n = 203) groups. The primary endpoint was incidence of ≥70% ST-segment resolution 60 min after TIMI flow grade 3. Secondary endpoints included high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) on day 4, left ventricular (LV) remodeling, and clinical events at 6-month follow-up.Results: Time from symptom onset to first antegrade flow was 180 ± 67 min; a median of 5 electrocardiography leads showed ST-segment deviation (quartile [Q]1 to Q3: 4 to 6); 49.8% of MIs were anterior. ST-segment resolution ≥70% was found in 52.0% of CsA patients and 49.0% of controls (p = 0.55). Median hs-cTnT on day 4 was 2,160 (Q1 to Q3: 1,087 to 3,274) ng/l in CsA and 2,068 (1,117 to 3,690) ng/l in controls (p = 0.85). The 2 groups did not differ in LV ejection fraction on day 4 and at 6 months. Infarct site did not influence CsA efficacy. There were no acute allergic reactions or nonsignificant excesses of 6-month mortality (5.7% CsA vs. 3.2% controls, p = 0.17) or cardiogenic shock (2.4% CsA vs. 1.5% controls, p = 0.33).Conclusions: In the CYCLE (CYCLosporinE A in Reperfused Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, a single intravenous CsA bolus just before primary percutaneous coronary intervention had no effect on ST-segment resolution or hs-cTnT, and did not improve clinical outcomes or LV remodeling up to 6 months. (CYCLosporinE A in Reperfused Acute Myocardial Infarction [CYCLE]; NCT01650662; EudraCT number 2011-002876-18). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete revascularization may improve outcomes compared with an infarct-related artery (IRA)-only strategy in patients being treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) who have multivessel disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is concern that non-IRA PCI may cause additional non-IRA myocardial infarction (MI).Objectives: This study sought to determine whether in-hospital complete revascularization was associated with increased total infarct size compared with an IRA-only strategy.Methods: This multicenter prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial evaluated STEMI patients with multivessel disease having PPCI within 12 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to either IRA-only PCI or complete in-hospital revascularization. Contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed following PPCI (median day 3) and stress CMR at 9 months. The pre-specified primary endpoint was infarct size on pre-discharge CMR. The study had 80% power to detect a 4% difference in infarct size with 100 patients per group.Results: Of the 296 patients in the main trial, 205 participated in the CMR substudy, and 203 patients (98 complete revascularization and 105 IRA-only) completed the pre-discharge CMR. The groups were well-matched. Total infarct size (median, interquartile range) was similar to IRA-only revascularization: 13.5% (6.2% to 21.9%) versus complete revascularization, 12.6% (7.2% to 22.6%) of left ventricular mass, p = 0.57 (95% confidence interval for difference in geometric means 0.82 to 1.41). The complete revascularization group had an increase in non-IRA MI on the pre-discharge CMR (22 of 98 vs. 11 of 105, p = 0.02). There was no difference in total infarct size or ischemic burden between treatment groups at follow-up CMR.Conclusions: Multivessel PCI in the setting of STEMI leads to a small increase in CMR-detected non-IRA MI, but total infarct size was not significantly different from an IRA-only revascularization strategy. (Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]