Search

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): The study project was financially supported by a no conditional grant (AstraZeneca) Background/Introduction With the advent of more potent antithrombotic agents, bleeding has emerged as an important safety concern in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Moreover, hemorrhagic complications have been strongly linked with subsequent mortality in this clinical scenario. Purpose We sought to determine the incidence, types, timing and prognostic relevance of major bleeding events in ACS patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in contemporary practice. Methods Prospective, observational, multicentre all-comers registry of ACS patients who were intended to receive a 12-month DAPT course with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Major bleeding was defined as a type 3 or 5 bleed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. Bleeding was further classified according to the anatomic location. All bleeding episodes were analysed accounting for death as a competing event, using competing risk regression models based on the on-treatment principle (i.e., according to the P2Y12 inhibitor actually received from date of index admission until either time of DAPT cessation plus 14 days or censoring, whichever occurred first). Results Among 2070 patients surviving to hospital discharge (mean age 63 years, 27% women, 62.5% STEMI), 106 (5.3%, 0.6%/year) experienced major bleeding event at a median time of 92 days (interquartile range, 6–187 days) after discharge. Most events (n=59, 55.7%) were BARC type 3a bleeds with 2 fatal bleeds (type 5b). In most cases (53%), the site of bleeding was gastrointestinal, followed by intracranial (n=13, 12%). After adjustments for baseline predictors, ticagrelor was associated with increased but not statistically significant risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel (5.6% vs 5.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.40, 95% CI 0.96 – 2.05; P = .075). Major bleeding was significantly associated with nearly 2-fold higher risk of mortality (aHR 1.94; 95% CI 1.32– 2.86; P = .001), irrespective of P2Y12 inhibitor treatment (P interaction = .159). Conclusion(s) Bleeding was not rare within 1 year after index ACS, with incidence rates peaked at 30 to 60 days post-index admission. The most common bleeding site was gastrointestinal followed by intracranial haemorrhage. Ticagrelor use was not associated with significantly increased risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel whereas bleeding led to a nearly 2-fold higher risk of major bleeding.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena Introduction The time to diagnostic coronary angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) is considered one of the main prognostic factors in patients at higher risk. Purpose Our aim is to know whether early coronary angiography modifies the prognosis of high-risk patients with NSTEACS and to compare it with performing this procedure later. Methods We include patients admitted to the coronary unit of a 3rd level hospital from January-2015 to December-2021 due to NSTEACS. We plan to examine whether the clinical characteristics of patients in whom early coronary angiography (ECA) is performed, the one performed in the first 24 hours from the onset of symptoms, differ from those in whom it is performed later. Likewise, we analyze the clinical results obtained according to the strategy. Results 811 patients were included (73.4% men and 26.6% women), with an average age of 65, in which 229 (28.2%) of them underwent early coronary angiography. Initially, we found more smokers (44.5% vs 32.8, p = 0.006), a higher frequency of risk electrocardiographic changes (ST decrease> 2 mm in 2 contiguous leads, transient ST segment elevation, left main stem pattern) (p = 0.000), greater need for inotropic drugs (14.5% vs 9.6%, p = 0.045), worse Killip-Kimball (KK) during hospital stay (p = 0.002), as well as higher frequency of cardiogenic shock (p = 0.005) among the patients in whom ECA was performed. Although in-hospital mortality was higher in patients who underwent ECA, no statistically significant difference was found. No differences were obtained in the other cardiovascular risk factors, previous history of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, coronary revascularization, initial KK presentation, or post-catheterization LVEF. Conclusions In our study, we observed that in patients admitted for NSTEACS, we performed ECA more frequently in patients with a worse prognosis (pathological alterations in the initial ECG, greater frequency of support with inotropics and worse KK during hospital admission), without observing significant differences in in-hospital mortality or in post-catheterization LVEF. The results suggest that ECA improves the prognosis in the group with the worst clinical profile.