Search

Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. This study compared P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y 12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y 12 inhibitors. Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y 12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It remains unclear whether P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to assess the effects of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity. We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P interaction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P interaction = 0.920). P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary definitions of bleeding endpoints are restricted mostly to clinically overt events. Whether hemoglobin drop per se, with or without overt bleeding, adversely affects the prognosis of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear.Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine in the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial the incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of in-hospital hemoglobin drop in patients with ACS managed invasively stratified by the presence of in-hospital bleeding.Methods: Patients were categorized by the presence and amount of in-hospital hemoglobin drop on the basis of baseline and nadir hemoglobin values and further stratified by the occurrence of adjudicated in-hospital bleeding. Hemoglobin drop was defined as minimal (<3 g/dl), minor (≥3 and <5 g/dl), or major (≥5 g/dl). Using multivariate Cox regression, we modeled the association between hemoglobin drop and mortality in patients with and without overt bleeding.Results: Among 7,781 patients alive 24 h after randomization with available hemoglobin data, 6,504 patients (83.6%) had hemoglobin drop, of whom 5,756 (88.5%) did not have overt bleeding and 748 (11.5%) had overt bleeding. Among patients without overt bleeding, minor (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32 to 4.24; p = 0.004) and major (HR: 2.58; 95% CI: 0.98 to 6.78; p = 0.054) hemoglobin drop were independently associated with higher 1-year mortality. Among patients with overt bleeding, the association of minor and major hemoglobin drop with 1-year mortality was directionally similar but had wider CIs (minor: HR: 3.53 [95% CI: 1.06 to 11.79]; major: HR: 13.32 [95% CI: 3.01 to 58.98]).Conclusions: Among patients with ACS managed invasively, in-hospital hemoglobin drop ≥3 g/dl, even in the absence of overt bleeding, is common and is independently associated with increased risk for 1-year mortality. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox; NCT01433627). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Angina pectoris may arise from obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) or in the absence of significant CAD (ischemia with nonobstructed coronary arteries [INOCA]). Therapeutic strategies for patients with angina and obstructive CAD focus on reducing cardiovascular events and relieving symptoms, whereas in INOCA the focus shifts toward managing functional alterations of the coronary circulation. In obstructive CAD, coronary revascularization might improve angina status, although a significant percentage of patients present angina persistence or recurrence, suggesting the presence of functional mechanisms along with epicardial CAD. In patients with INOCA, performing a precise endotype diagnosis is crucial to allow a tailored therapy targeted toward the specific pathogenic mechanism. In this expert opinion paper, we review the evidence for the management of angina, highlighting the complementary role of coronary revascularization, optimal medical therapy, and lifestyle interventions and underscoring the importance of a personalized approach that targets the underlying pathobiology. • Angina pectoris may arise from obstructive CAD or in the absence of significant CAD. • Functional mechanisms may be involved in determining angina both in obstructive CAD and in ischemia with nonobstructed coronary arteries. • Revascularization and medical therapy play complementary roles in achieving optimal outcomes for patients with angina. • Management of angina is shifting toward a more personalized approach, moving away from the traditional one-size-fits-all strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]