Search

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied. Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88–1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73–1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10–1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81–1.60], P = 0.470). Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). Background The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined. Methods Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR ( Results Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding. Conclusions These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800 )

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. Methods This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). Results There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10–1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49–1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94–2.01]; P = 0.097). Conclusions In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. Clinical trial registration NCT01944800

Background Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI). Objectives This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management. Methods This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3–5. Results The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month. Conclusions In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800 )

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)...

Objectives The aim of this study was to identify independent correlates of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) from an analysis of consecutively treated patients from 15 multicenter studies. Background Recent analyses suggest an increased risk for VLST with the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold compared with drug-eluting stents, but insights as to correlates of risk are limited. Methods A total of 55 patients were identified with scaffold thrombosis. They were matched 2:1 with control subjects selected randomly from patients without thrombosis from the same study. Quantitative coronary angiography was available for 96.4% of patients. Multiple logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to identify significant independent outcome correlates from 6 pre-specified characteristics. Results Patients had scaffold thrombosis at a median of 20 months (interquartile range: 17 to 27 months). Control subjects were followed for 36 months (interquartile range: 24 to 38 months). For the combined groups, reference vessel diameter (RVD) was 2.84 ± 0.50 mm, scaffold length was 26 ± 16 mm, and post-dilatation was performed in 56%. Univariate correlates of thrombosis were smaller nominal scaffold/RVD ratio (linear p = 0.001; ratio 2.72 mm; odds ratio: 3.4; p = 0.001). Post-dilatation at ≥16 atm, post-dilatation balloon/scaffold ratio, final percentage stenosis, and dual antiplatelet therapy were not correlated with VLST. Only scaffold/RVD ratio remained a significant independent correlate of VLST (p = 0.001), as smaller ratio was correlated with RVD (p Conclusions In the present analysis, the largest to date of its type, relative scaffold undersizing was the strongest determinant of VLST. Given current understanding of “scaffold dismantling,” this finding likely has ramifications for all bioresorbable scaffolds.

Recent analyses suggest an increased risk of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLST) beyond 1 year after implantation of Absorb BVS compared to metallic DES, but insights as to correlates of risk emanate from a limited number of patients. We sought to identify and verify independent correlates of

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The performance of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have undergone primary angioplasty has not been previously studied. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials that compared DESs (i.e., sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with STEMI. The analysis involved 389 patients with diabetes mellitus from a total of 2476 patients. The outcomes of interest were target-lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, death and the composite endpoint of death or recurrent myocardial infarction during a follow-up of 12-24 months. RESULTS: Overall, 206 diabetic patients received a DES and 183, a BMS. The risk of target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.13; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction.

Introduccion y objetivos. Los resultados obtenidos con los stents liberadores de farmacos (SLF) en el grupo de pacientes de alto riesgo formado por los pacientes diabeticos con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevacion del segmento ST (IAMCEST) tratados con angioplastia primaria no se han estudiado con anterioridad. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de los SLF en pacientes diabeticos con IAMCEST. Metodos. Llevamos a cabo un analisis combinado de los datos de pacientes individuales de siete ensayos aleatorizados en los que se comparo el empleo de stents liberadores de sirolimus o de paclitaxel (SLF) con el de stents convencionales (SC) en el contexto de un IAMCEST. Se incluyo en este analisis a 389 pacientes con diabetes mellitus de un grupo total de 2.476. Los objetivos del estudio fueron la revascularizacion de la lesion diana, la trombosis del stent, la muerte y la variable combinada de muerte o infarto de miocardio recurrente durante un periodo de seguimiento de 12-24 meses. Resultados. Hubo 206 pacientes diabeticos tratados con SLF y 183 tratados con SC. El riesgo de que se practicara una revascularizacion de la lesion diana fue significativamente inferior en los pacientes tratados con SLF en comparacion con los pacientes tratados con SC (razon de riesgos [HR] = 0,44; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 0,23-0,88; p = 0,02). El riesgo de trombosis del stent no presento diferencias significativas entre los pacientes tratados con SLF y los tratados con SC (HR = 0,33; IC del 95%, 0,09-1,13; p = 0,08). De forma analoga, el riesgo de la variable de valoracion combinada formada por la muerte y el infarto de miocardio no presento diferencias significativas entre los pacientes tratados con SLF y los tratados con SC (HR = 0,64; IC del 95%, 0,36-1,13; p = 0,12). Conclusiones. En comparacion con los SC, los SLF mejoran los resultados clinicos en los pacientes diabeticos a los que se practica una angioplastia primaria por un IAMCEST, al reducir la necesidad de reintervencion sin incrementar la tasa de mortalidad o infarto de miocardio.

Recent concerns have emerged on the potential higher risk of stent thrombosis after DES implantation, that might be even more pronounced among STEMI patients. Thus, the aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits and safety of DES as compared to BMS in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI.The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL). We examined all completed randomized trials of DES for STEMI. The following key words were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, stenting, DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), Cypher, paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), Taxus. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.A total of 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis, involving 3605 patients (1888 or 52.3% randomized to DES and 1719 or 47.7% randomized to BMS). At 12 months follow-up, no significant difference was observed in mortality (4.1% vs 4.4%, OR [95% CI]=0.91 [0.66-1.27], p=0.59, reinfarction (3.1% vs 3.4%, OR [95% CI]=0.85 [0.58, 1.23], p=0.38 or stent thrombosis (1.6% vs 2.2%, OR [95% CI]=0.76 [0.47, 1.23], p=0.22), whereas DES were associated with a significant reduction in TVR (5.0% vs 12.6%, OR [95% CI]=0.36 [0.28, 0.47], p0.0001). Safety and efficacy of DES were confirmed at 18 to 24 months follow-up (data available from 4 trials including 1178 patients).This meta-analysis shows that among selected STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, SES and PES, as compared to BMS, are safe and associated with a significant reduction in TVR at 1 and 2 years follow-up.