Search

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS., Competing Interests: M.V. reports grants/personal fees from Abbott, Alvimedica/CID, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb/Jansen, Chiesi, CoreFLOW, Daiichi-Sankyo, Department Klinische Forschung of Universität Basel, Health Life, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Miracor, Novartis, Radcliffe, Terumo, and Vesalio, outside the submitted work. D.J.A. reports consulting fees/honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura, outside the present work; as well as disclosing that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. U.B. reports honoraria/consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. D.L.B. discloses the following relationships: Advisory Board member for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; Board of Directors positions for American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (stock options), Bristol-Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), and High Enroll (stock); consulting for Broadview Ventures, GlaxoSmithKline, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; Data Monitoring Committee member for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial [PorticoTM Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US IDE Trial], funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial [Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis]), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2 [Protection Against Emboli During Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Neuroguard IEP System]), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (ENVISAGE trial [Edoxaban Versus Standard of Care and Their Effects on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Having Undergone Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation–Atrial Fibrillation], funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ABILITY-DM trial [Abluminus DES+ Sirolimus-Eluting Stent vs. Everolimus-Eluting DES for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus], funded by Concept Medical; ALLAY-HF [A pivotal Trial of the Alleviant System for No-Implant Shunt Creation in Heart Failure Patients], funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT Trial [Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion]); honoraria from American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News; Chair, American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research ([formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute] RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial [Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention] steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II [ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes II] executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (American Heart Association lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including the PRONOUNCE trial [A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease], funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (Continuing Medical Education [CME] steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME; Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies] Operations Committee, Publications Committee, Steering Committee, and USA National Co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); Deputy Editor for Clinical Cardiology; is named on a patent for sotagliflozin (assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital who assigned to Lexicon); research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; and trustee of American College of Cardiology. D.L.B. also reports unfunded research for FlowCo. M.P.B. is the Executive Director of CPC, a nonprofit academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado, which receives or has received research grant/consulting funding between August 2021 and present from: Abbott Laboratories, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Alexion Pharma, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Angionetics, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca and Affiliates, Atentiv, Audentes Therapeutics, Bayer and Affiliates, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Better Therapeutics, Boston Clinical Research Institute, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, Cambrian Biopharma, Cardiol Therapeutics CellResearch, Cleerly, Cook Regentec, CSL Behring, Eidos Therapeutics, EP Trading, EPG Communication Holdings, Epizon Pharma, Esperion Therapeutics, Everly Well, Exicon Consulting, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Foresee Pharmaceuticals, Fortress Biotech, HDL Therapeutics, HeartFlow, Hummingbird Bioscience, Insmed, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, Janssen and Affiliates, Kowa Research Institute, Kyushu University, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Medimmune, Medpace, Merck & Affiliates, Nectero Medical, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Osiris Therapeutics, Pfizer, PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals, Pharmaceutical Product Development LP, Prairie Education and Research Cooperative, Prothena Biosciences Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regio Biosciences, Saint Luke’s Hospital of Kansas City, Sanifit Therapeutics S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe, Silence Therapeutics, Smith & Nephew, Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stealth BioTherapeutics, State of Colorado Cancer, Cardiovascular. and Pulmonary Disease Grant, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Thrombosis Research Institute, University of Colorado, University of Pittsburgh, VarmX, Virta Health Corporation, Worldwide Clinical Trials, WraSer, and Yale Cardiovascular Research Group. D.C. reports consulting and speaking fees from Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, and Terumo, outside the present work. D.J.C. reports institutional research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Philips, CathWorks, Corvia, Zoll Medical, and I-Rhythm; and consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, Elixir Medical, and HeartBeam. C.M.G. reports research grant support from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. S.J. reports institutional grants from AstraZeneca, Jansen, Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. R.D.L. reports research grants/contracts from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis (outside the submitted work); funding for educational activities or lectures from Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novo Nordisk; and funding for consulting or other services from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk. G.M. reports institutional research funds or fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Ascendia, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Celecor, CSL Behring, Idorsia, Lilly, Novartis, Novo, Opalia, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, Sanofi, and Terumo, outside the submitted work. G.W.S. has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Cardiomech, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Apollo Therapeutics, Elucid Bio, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, HighLife, Elixir, Remote Cardiac Enablement, and Aria; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. G.W.S.’s employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. D.S. has received speaker fees and fees for advisory board activities from Bayer, Sanofi, and Daiichi-Sankyo. R.F.S. reports institutional research grants/support from AstraZeneca and Cytosorbents; personal fees from Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Cytosorbents, Daiichi-Sankyo, Idorsia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, and Tabuk; all outside the submitted work. P.V. reports personal fees from Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, and CLS Behring, outside the submitted work. S.W. reports research and educational grants to their institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave. S.W. serves as unpaid Advisory Board Member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. R.M. reports institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, Cardiovascular European Research Center, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Insel Gruppe AG, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; personal fees from American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; 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; equity, 1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, and Controlrad (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse), all outside the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces ischemic events but increases bleeding risk, especially in patients with high bleeding risk (HBR). This study aimed to compare outcomes of abbreviated versus standard DAPT strategies in patients with HBR with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods and Results: Patients from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Bare in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry with at least 1 HBR criterion who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome were identified and included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on their planned DAPT time at discharge: 12-month DAPT or an abbreviated DAPT strategy and matched according to their prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor at discharge. The primary outcome assessed was time to net adverse clinical events at 1 year, which encompassed cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or clinically significant bleeding. Time to major adverse cardiovascular events and the individual components of net adverse clinical events were considered secondary end points. A total of 4583 patients were included in each group. The most frequently met HBR criteria was age older than 75 years (65.6%) and Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy score ≥25 (44.6%) in the standard DAPT group and oral anticoagulant therapy (79.6%) and age 75 years and older (55.2%) in the abbreviated DAPT group. There was no statistically significant difference in net adverse clinical events (12.9% versus 13.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88-1.11], P =0.83), major adverse cardiovascular events (8.6% versus 7.9%; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.94-1.25]), or their components between groups. The results were consistent among all of the investigated subgroups., Conclusions: In patients with HBR undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention due to acute coronary syndrome, abbreviated DAPT was associated with comparable rates of net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiovascular events to a DAPT duration of 12 months.

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: V.A. reports speakers honoraria from Amgen, Novartis and Pfizer and is consultant/advisory board for Bayer Healthcare, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and BMS, outside the submitted work. D.J.A. 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, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and Vectura, outside the present work; 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, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation.. D.C. declares that he has received consulting and speaking fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biotronik, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis outside the present work. SH has received speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. S.J. reported grants from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. P.J. serves as an unpaid steering committee member of trials funded by Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors, St Jude Medical, Terumo, and The Medicines Company; receives institutional research grants from Appili Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors International, Eli Lilly, and The Medicines Company; and receives institutional honoraria for participation in advisory boards or consulting from Amgen, Ava, and Fresenius, but has not received personal payments by any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer. S.L. reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, Pifezer/BMS, ICON, Chiesi, and Novonordisk, all outside the submitted work. R.M. reports 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; consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, Philips; Equity, 1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, Biosensors (spouse), all outside the submitted work. G.M. reports institutional research funds or fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Ascendia, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Celecor, CSL Behring, Idorsia, Lilly, Novartis, Novo, Opalia, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, Sanofi, Terumo, outside the submitted work. E.P.N. reports research grants from Abbott and Amgen and lecture fees/honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron, outside the submitted work. R.F.S. reports institutional research grants/support from AstraZeneca and Cytosorbents; personal fees from Alfasigma, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Idorsia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio and Tabuk; all outside the submitted work. P.V. reports personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, and personal fees from CLS Behring, outside the submitted work. S.W. reports research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. S.W. serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. K.A.A.F. has received grants and personal fees from Bayer/Janssen and AstraZeneca and personal fees from Sanofi/Regeneron and Verseon, outside the submitted work. M.V. reports grants and/or personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals-Ltd, Universität Basel Department Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol-Myers-Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston scientific, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, PhaseBio, outside the submitted work. The other authors report no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 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.)

Background: Heart failure (HF) may complicate acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is associated with a high burden of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Only limited data regarding future ischemic events and rehospitalization are available for patients who suffer HF before or during ACS., Methods: A secondary analysis of 4 large ACS trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS) using Cox proportional hazards models was performed to investigate the association of HF status (no HF, chronic HF, de novo HF) at presentation for ACS with all-cause and cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE ), myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 1 year. Cumulative incidence plots are presented at 30 days and 1 year., Results: A total of 11.1% of the 47,474 patients presenting with ACS presented with evidence of acute HF, 55.0% of whom presented with de novo HF. Patients with chronic HF presented with evidence of acute HF at a higher rate than those with no previous HF (40.3% vs 6.9%). Compared to those without HF, those with chronic and de novo HF had higher rates of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-2.34 and aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.15-1.88, respectively), MACE (aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.31-1-.66 and aHR 1.38, 95% CI1.12-1.69), and HHF (aHR 2.29, 95% CI2.02-2.61 and aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.82) at 1 year., Conclusion: In this large cohort of patients with ACS, both prior and de novo HF complicating ACS were associated with significantly higher risk-adjusted rates of death, ischemic events and HHF at 30 days and 1 year. Further studies examining the association between HF and outcomes in this high-risk population are warranted, especially given the advent of more contemporary HF therapies., Competing Interests: Disclosures JAU reports speaker/consulting honoraria from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; grant support to his institutions: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi; and is supported by an Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities Early Researcher Award (ER15-11-037); University of Toronto Department of Medicine Merit Award; Women's College Research Institute and Department of Medicine, Women's College Hospital; and the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital. JB is a consultant to Abbott, Adrenomed, American Regent, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, and Vifor. JLJ is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology and a Board member of Imbria Pharmaceuticals, has received grant support from Applied Therapeutics, Innolife, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Abbott Diagnostics and consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics and participates in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda, and is supported in part by the Hutter Family Professorship. PBP has served on the Advisory Board for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals and as a consultant for Medtronic. SJ reports research grants from Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Jansen Pharmaceuticals. JHA reports research grants through Duke University from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Ferring, the US Food and Drug Administration, Glaxosmithkline, Humacyte, the US National Institutes of Health, and XaTek and consultant/honoraria payments from AbbVie, Akros, Atricure, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CryoLife, Ferring, Glaxosmithkline, Janssen, Pfizer, Portola, and the US Veterans Administration. AFH reports research grants from American Regent, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Verily and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Novartis. WSJ reports research grants from Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and honoraria/other from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. All other authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family is involved in pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cardiovascular (CV) diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between circulating VEGF ligands and/or soluble receptors and CV outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS)., Methods and Results: Levels of VEGF biomarkers, including bFGF, Flt-1, KDR (VEGFR2), PlGF, Tie-2, VEGF-A, VEGF-C, and VEGF-D, were measured in the PLATO ACS cohort (n = 2091, discovery cohort). Subsequently, VEGF-D was also measured in the STABILITY CCS cohort (n = 4015, confirmation cohort) to verify associations with CV outcomes. Associations between plasma VEGF-D and outcomes were analysed by multiple Cox regression models with hazard ratios (HR [95% CI]) comparing the upper vs. the lower quartile of VEGF-D. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of VEGF-D in PLATO identified SNPs that were used as genetic instruments in Mendelian randomization (MR) meta-analyses vs. clinical endpoints. GWAS and MR were performed in patients with ACS from PLATO (n = 10 013) and FRISC-II (n = 2952), and with CCS from the STABILITY trial (n = 10 786). VEGF-D, KDR, Flt-1, and PlGF showed significant association with CV outcomes. VEGF-D was most strongly associated with CV death (P = 3.73e-05, HR 1.892 [1.419, 2.522]). Genome-wide significant associations with VEGF-D levels were identified at the VEGFD locus on chromosome Xp22. MR analyses of the combined top ranked SNPs (GWAS P-values; rs192812042, P = 5.82e-20; rs234500, P = 1.97e-14) demonstrated a significant effect on CV mortality [P = 0.0257, HR 1.81 (1.07, 3.04) per increase of one unit in log VEGF-D]., Conclusion: This is the first large-scale cohort study to demonstrate that both VEGF-D plasma levels and VEGFD genetic variants are independently associated with CV outcomes in patients with ACS and CCS. Measurements of VEGF-D levels and/or VEGFD genetic variants may provide incremental prognostic information in patients with ACS and CCS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: the current study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. A.B., A.Ca., A.Co., A.W., P.D., and S.E. are employees of AstraZeneca., (© The Author(s) 2023. 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.)

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Capodanno reports speaker or consulting fees from Amgen, Arena, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Terumo; and institutional fees from Medtronic. 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, Filterlex Medical, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Protembis, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, and Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Vectura, and WebMD; equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, and ControlRad (spouse); and roles with the American Medical Association (Scientific Advisory Board, JAMA Cardiology Associate editor), American College of Cardiology (board of trustees member, member clinical trials research program), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (Women in Innovations committee member; faculty Cardiac Research Foundation; no fee). Dr Baber discloses honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Bhatt discloses the following relationships: advisory board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; board of directors: Angiowave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; chair: inaugural chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; consultant: Broadview Ventures and Hims; data monitoring committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for PORTICO [Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US IDE Trial], funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO [Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis Study]), Cleveland Clinic (including for ExCEED [Centera THV System in Intermediate Risk Patients Who Have Symptomatic, Severe, Calcific, Aortic Stenosis], funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2 [Protection Against Emboli During Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Neuroguard IEP System]), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for ENVISAGE [Edoxaban Compared to Standard Care After Heart Valve Replacement Using a Catheter in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation], funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for ABILITY-DM [Randomized Comparison of Abluminus DES+ Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease Patients with Diabetes Mellitus], funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT [Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion]); honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; chair, American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI [Evaluation of Dual Therapy With Dabigatran vs Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation That Undergo a PCI With Stenting] clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II [Study to Investigate CSL112 in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome] executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for PRONOUNCE [A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease], funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor; associate editor), K2P (co-chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies] operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and US national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (continuing medical education steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor), National Cardiovascular Data Registry–ACTION Registry Steering Committee (chair), and VA CART (Cardiovascular Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Research and Publications Committee (chair); patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, assigned to Lexicon; neither the author nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties: Elsevier (editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site coinvestigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; trustee: American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research: FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Capranzano reports speaker fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Bayer. Dr Collet reports grants for the institution, honoraria, or research fees from BMS Pfizer, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr Cuisset reports consulting and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Europa Organisation, Medtronic, Terumo, and Sanofi, and shares from CERC, a health care company. Dr L. De Luca has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, Aspen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Servier, and The Medicines Company, outside the present work. Dr Farb has received payment as an individual for consulting fee or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi and institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Gibson reports grant support paid to the institution and consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, CeleCor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck. Dr Hahn reports an institutional research grant from the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea, and from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Donga-ST, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, and Medtronic Inc. Dr James repots grants to the institution from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. Dr Lemos reports institutional research funding, unpaid advisory board membership, unpaid membership of the steering/executive/data safety and monitoring group of trials, and unpaid interventional proctorship by Abbott, Corindus, Scitech, Boston Scientific, and Flouit but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; being part of Argonauts, an innovation facilitator; and partial support by a grant from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil (grant 306677/2019-9). Dr Lopes reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr Morice reports being chief executive officer and a shareholder of CERC and a minor shareholder of Electroducer. Dr O’Donoghue reports grants through the hospital from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr Serruys reports consultancy fees from SMT, Philips, Novartis, Merillife, and Xeltis. Dr Smits reports institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular and SMT and speaker or consulting honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Microport, and Terumo. Dr Steg reports research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; he is a speaker or consultant for Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier; he is senior associate editor of Circulation. Dr Storey reports institutional research grants/support and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytosorbents, GlyCardial Diagnostics, and Thromboserin and personal fees from Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Hengrui, Idorsia, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, PhaseBio, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr Valgimigli reports grants and personal fees from Terumo and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel, Dept Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medscape, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, ECRI, and PhaseBio. Dr Vranckx received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer AG, CSL Behring, Novartis, and Pfizer-Bristol Meyers Squibb alliance. Dr Windecker reports research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as an advisory board member or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, SINOMED, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis, with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without effect on his personal remuneration. Dr Yeh reports research grants or consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Cathworks, Elixir Medical, Shockwave, and Zoll. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura, outside the present work; and his institution has received 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 the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

The TACSI trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03560310) tests the hypothesis that 1-year treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and ticagrelor is superior to only ASA after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The TACSI trial is an investigator-initiated pragmatic, prospective, multinational, multicenter, open-label, registry-based randomized trial with 1:1 randomization to dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA and ticagrelor or ASA only, in patients undergoing first isolated CABG, with a planned enrollment of 2200 patients at Nordic cardiac surgery centers. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new coronary revascularization within 12 months after randomization. The primary safety end point is time to hospitalization due to major bleeding. Secondary efficacy end points include time to the individual components of the primary end point, cardiovascular death, and rehospitalization due to cardiovascular causes. High-quality health care registries are used to assess primary and secondary end points. The patients will be followed for 10 years. The TACSI trial will give important information useful for guiding the antiplatelet strategy in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with CABG., Competing Interests: Disclosures AJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and LFB Biotechnologies outside the present study. None of the other authors report any conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with kidney failure have a high risk for cardiovascular events. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic importance of selected biomarkers related to haemostasis, endothelial function, and vascular regulation in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and to study whether this association differed in patients with renal dysfunction., Methods: Plasma was collected in 1370 ACS patients included between 2008 and 2015. Biomarkers were analysed using a Proximity Extension Assay and a Multiple Reaction Monitoring mass spectrometry assay. To reduce multiplicity, biomarkers correlating with eGFR were selected a priori among 36 plasma biomarkers reflecting endothelial and vascular function, and haemostasis. Adjusted Cox regression were used to study their association with the composite outcome of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, heart failure or death. Interaction with eGFR strata above or below 60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 was tested., Results: Tissue factor, proteinase-activated receptor, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator surface receptor (suPAR), thrombomodulin, adrenomedullin, renin, and angiotensinogen correlated inversely with eGFR and were selected for the Cox regression. Mean follow-up was 5.2 years during which 428 events occurred. Adrenomedullin, suPAR, and renin were independently associated with the composite outcome. Adrenomedullin showed interaction with eGFR strata (p = 0.010) and was associated with increased risk (HR 1.88; CI 1.44-2.45) only in patients with eGFR ≥60 ml/min/ 1.73 m 2 ., Conclusions: Adrenomedullin, suPAR, and renin were associated with the composite outcome in all. Adrenomedullin, involved in endothelial protection, showed a significant interaction with renal function and outcome, and was associated with the composite outcome only in patients with preserved kidney function., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Spaak has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Medtronics and Novartis and declare minor share hold in Beat Vascular Health., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with diabetes have increased rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). We hypothesized that this is explained by diabetes-associated differences in coronary plaque morphology and lipid content., Methods: In PROSPECT II (Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree), 898 patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation underwent 3-vessel quantitative coronary angiography and coregistered near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound imaging after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Subsequent MACEs were adjudicated to either treated culprit lesions or untreated nonculprit lesions. This substudy stratified patients by diabetes status and assessed baseline culprit and nonculprit prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics defined as maximum plaque burden ≥70% and maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7. Separate covariate-adjusted multivariable models were performed to identify whether diabetes was associated with nonculprit lesion-related MACEs and high-risk plaque characteristics., Results: Diabetes was present in 109 of 898 patients (12.1%). During a median 3.7-year follow-up, MACEs occurred more frequently in patients with versus without diabetes (20.1% versus 13.5% [odds ratio (OR), 1.94 (95% CI, 1.14-3.30)]), primarily attributable to increased risk of myocardial infarction related to culprit lesion restenosis (4.3% versus 1.1% [OR, 3.78 (95% CI, 1.12-12.77)]) and nonculprit lesion-related spontaneous myocardial infarction (9.3% versus 3.8% [OR, 2.74 (95% CI, 1.25-6.04)]). However, baseline prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics was similar for patients with versus without diabetes concerning culprit (maximum plaque burden ≥70%: 90% versus 93%, P =0.34; maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7: 66% versus 70%, P =0.49) and nonculprit lesions (maximum plaque burden ≥70%: 23% versus 22%, P =0.37; maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7: 26% versus 24%, P =0.47). In multivariable models, diabetes was associated with MACEs in nonculprit lesions (adjusted OR, 2.47 [95% CI, 1.21-5.04]) but not with prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics (adjusted OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69])., Conclusions: Among patients with recent myocardial infarction, both treated and untreated lesions contributed to the diabetes-associated ≈2-fold increased MACE rate during the 3.7-year follow-up. Diabetes-related plaque characteristics that might underlie this increased risk were not identified by multimodality imaging., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02171065.

Background: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), there is residual and variable risk of recurrent ischemic events., Objectives: This study aimed to develop biomarker-based prediction models for 1-year risk of cardiovascular (CV) death and myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: We included 10,713 patients from the PLATO (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial in the development cohort and externally validated in 3,508 patients from the TRACER (Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial. Variables contributing to risk of CV death/MI were assessed using Cox regression models, and a score was derived using subsets of variables approximating the full model., Results: There were 632 and 190 episodes of CV death/MI in the development and validation cohorts. The most important predictors of CV death/MI were the biomarkers, growth differentiation factor 15, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, which had greater prognostic value than all candidate variables. The final model included 8 items: age (A), biomarkers (B) (growth differentiation factor 15 and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), and clinical variables (C) (extent of coronary artery disease, previous vascular disease, Killip class, ACS type, P2Y 12 inhibitor). The model, named ABC-ACS ischemia, was well calibrated and showed good discriminatory ability for 1-year risk of CV death/MI with C-indices of 0.71 and 0.72 in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. For CV death, the score performed better, with C-indices of 0.80 and 0.84 in the development and validation cohorts, respectively., Conclusions: An 8-item score for the prediction of CV death/MI was developed and validated for patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The ABC-ACS ischemia score showed good calibration and discrimination and might be useful for risk prediction and decision support in patients with ACS. (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872; Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar [SCH 530348; MK-5348] in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Participants With Acute Coronary Syndrome [TRACER]; NCT00527943)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Grants from The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (grant number RB13-0197) supported this project. The PLATO trial was funded by AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom. The TRACER trial was funded by Merck, Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA. Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, provided GDF-15 assays free of charge. The funding sources had no influence on the work but were given the opportunity to review the final version of the report. Dr Batra has received institutional research grants from Pfizer; has received expert committee and consulting fees to his institution from Bayer; and has received honoraria for lectures and scientific advice from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr Lindbäck has received institutional research grants from GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Becker has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Ionis and Novartis; serves on the scientific advisory board for Basking; and has received payment for expert testimony from Plunkett and Cooney. Dr Harrington has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; has received research grants from Janssen; and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Held has received institutional research grants from GlaxoSmithKline; has received honoraria and research grants from Pfizer; and has received consultant and Advisory Board fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Coala Life. Dr James has received an institutional research grant, honoraria, and consultant/advisory board fee from AstraZeneca; has received an institutional research grant and consultant/advisory board fee from Medtronic; has received institutional research grants and honoraria from The Medicines Company; and has received consultant/advisory board fees from Janssen, Bayer, Novartis, Amgen, and PhaseBio. Dr Kempf has patents related to GDF-15 that have been licensed to Roche Diagnostics. Dr Lopes has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Portola. Dr Mahaffey has received grants and consulting fees from and participation on a DSMB for AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson; has received grants and consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi; has received consulting fees and speaker honoraria from Inova, Intermountain Health, Medscape, and Mount Sinai; has received grants and participation on a DSMB for Ferring, Luitpold, and Sanifit; has received consulting fees and participation on a DSMB for Myokardia and Theravance; has received grants from Afferent, American Heart Association, Apple Inc, Cardiva Medical Inc, Eidos, Gilead, Google (Verily), Medtronic, Merck, and St. Jude; has received consulting fees from Anthos Applied Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Elsevier, Mundi Pharma, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Portola, and SmartMedics; and participates on a DSMB for National Health and Medical Research Council and The George Institute for Global Health, Australia. Dr Steg has received grants and speaker/consultancy fees from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received speaker/consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Amarin, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Dr Storey has received institutional research grants and speaker/consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Cytosorbents, GlyCardial Diagnostics, and Thromboserin; and has received speaker/consultancy fees from Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Chiesi, CSL-Behring, Hengrui, Idorsia, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Medscape, Novartis, PhaseBio, Portola, and Sanofi. Dr Wollert has received patents related to GDF-15 that have been licensed to Roche Diagnostics. Dr Siegbahn has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from OLINK Proteomics. Dr Wallentin has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co, and Roche Diagnostics; has received consulting fees from Abbott; and has patents related to GDF-15 that have been licensed to Roche Diagnostics. Dr Swahn has reported that she has 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.)

Background: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI)., Methods: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo., Results: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61])., Conclusions: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

Background: Current guidelines stress the importance of early invasive assessment of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), in particular those at high risk. However, supporting scientific evidence is limited., Aims: We aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of the timing of coronary angiography in a large cohort of NSTE-ACS patients., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis including 34,666 NSTE-ACS patients registered from 2013 to 2018 in the SWEDEHEART registry. The prognostic implications of the timing of coronary angiography on a continuous scale and within <24 vs 24-72 hours were assessed using Cox regression analyses., Results: The median time interval from admission to invasive assessment was 32.8 (25th, 75th percentiles 20.4-63.8) hours. There was no apparent time window within 96 hours from admission that provided prognostic benefit. Coronary angiography within 24-72 hours (vs <24 hours) was not associated with worse outcome overall (all-cause mortality: hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.11; major adverse events: hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98-1.12). Interaction analyses indicated a greater relative benefit of coronary angiography <24 hours in some lower-risk groups (women, non-diabetics, patients with minor troponin elevation) but neutral effects in higher-risk groups (defined by age or the GRACE 2.0 score)., Conclusions: These Swedish data do not provide support for an early invasive strategy in NSTE-ACS, especially in high-risk patients. Our results suggest that the timing of invasive assessment should rather be based on individualised decisions integrating symptoms and risk panorama than on strictly defined time intervals.

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at risk for recurrent adverse events, and multiple reports suggest that this risk is increased in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). The aim of this article was to investigate cardiovascular outcomes in patients with DM presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status. Data were derived from 4 randomized post-ACS trials (PLATO [Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes], APPRAISE-2 p Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2], TRILOGY [Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage], and TRACER [Thrombin Receptor Agonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome]). Using Cox regression analysis, we investigated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke and the individual components of MACE and all-cause mortality in patients with DM, presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status as the risk modifier. This study included 15,387 patients with a diagnosis of DM and ACS, of whom 1,751 had an additional diagnosis of PAD. PAD was associated with more than doubled rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81 to 2.27), all-cause mortality (HR 2.48, 95% CI 2.14 to 2.87), cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.42, 95% CI 2.04 to 2.86), and MI (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.38). Patients with both PAD and DM were also more optimally treated with antihypertensive, antidiabetic, and statin medication at baseline. In conclusion, this analysis of 4 major post-ACS trials showed that patients with DM and PAD had a substantially higher risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and MI despite being optimally treated with guideline-based therapies., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Restoration of myocardial blood flow and perfusion during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) measured using Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade (TFG) and perfusion grade (TMPG) is associated with improved outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Associations between TFG/TMPG and changes in biomarkers reflecting myocardial damage/dysfunction and inflammation is unknown., Methods and Results: Among 2606 patients included, TFG was evaluated in 2198 and TMPG in 1874 with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment ACS (NSTE-ACS). Biomarkers reflecting myocardial necrosis [troponin T (TnT)], myocardial dysfunction [N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)], inflammation [interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-reactive protein (CRP)], and oxidative stress/ageing/inflammation [growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15)] were measured at baseline, discharge, and 1- and 6-month post-randomization. Associations between TFG/TMPG and changes in biomarker levels were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon signed test. In total, 1423 (54.6%) patients had STEMI and 1183 (45.4%) NSTE-ACS. Complete reperfusion after PCI with TFG = 3 was achieved in 1110 (85.3%) with STEMI and in 793 (88.5%) with NSTE-ACS. Normal myocardial perfusion with TMPG = 3 was achieved in 475 (41.6%) with STEMI and in 396 (54.0%) with NSTE-ACS. Levels of TnT, NT-proBNP, IL-6, CRP, and GDF-15 were substantially lower at discharge in patients with complete vs. incomplete TFG and STEMI (P < 0.01). This pattern was not observed for patients with NSTE-ACS. Patients with normal vs. abnormal TMPG and NSTE-ACS had lower levels of NT-proBNP at discharge (P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Successful restoration of epicardial blood flow in STEMI was associated with less myocardial necrosis/dysfunction and inflammation. Attainment of normal myocardial perfusion was associated with less myocardial dysfunction in NSTE-ACS., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes., Methods: iFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR., Results: No patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups., Conclusions: In patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Philips Volcano to the Uppsala Clinical Research Center. Dr Götberg has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific and Volcano; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific; and has received fees for serving on an advisory board from Medtronic. Dr Sandhall has received lecture fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Volcano; and has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Maeng has received speaker and advisory board fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr Omerovic has received grant support from Abbott and AstraZeneca; and has received fees for serving on an advisory board from AstraZeneca. Dr Fröbert has received grant support from Sanofi-Pasteur. 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.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator., Background: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared., Methods: Randomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity., Results: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, and OrbusNeich; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medscape, Siemens Medical Solutions, Roivant Sciences, and Sanofi; is a consultant (no fees) for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; has received institutional consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Spectranetics/Phillips/Volcano Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Watermark Research; is an executive committee member for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; and owns <1% equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical. Dr James has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi-Sankyo. 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; and has received institutional research 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 Capodanno has received consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi (outside the present work). 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.)

Purpose of Review: We assessed the differences in the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) versus 2015 ESC and 2014 American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines on the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS)., Recent Findings: The recent publication of the 2020 ESC has provided a comprehensive series of recommendations on diagnosis and management of patients presenting with NSTE-ACS. However, there are discrepancies between the 2020 ESC versus 2015 ESC and 2014 ACC guidelines, creating uncertainty among clinicians in routine practices. Our investigation provides insights into several domains, including diagnosis, risk stratification, pharmacological treatments, invasive treatment, and special populations. Overall, it seems that the 2020 version of the ESC guideline for the management of NSTE-ACS provides the most evidence-based recommendations for clinicians; although due to the lack of validated investigation across some of the proposed recommendations, further longitudinal multicenter studies are warranted to address the current questions. Diagnostic algorithm in NSTE-ACS., Abbreviations: ACC = American College of Cardiology; CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CCTA = coronary computed tomography angiography; CMR = cardiac magnetic resonance; CS = cardiogenic shock; ECG = electrocardiography; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESC = European Society of Cardiology; GRACE = Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events; HF = heart failure; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging; MR = mitral regurgitation; NSTE-ACS = non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; TIMI = thrombolysis in myocardial infarction., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background Whether factor V Leiden is associated with lower bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes using (dual) antiplatelet therapy has yet to be investigated. Methods and Results We pooled data from 3 randomized clinical trials, conducted in patients with acute coronary syndromes, with adjudicated bleeding outcomes. Cox regression models were used to obtain overall and cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) to account for competing risk of atherothrombotic outcomes (ie, composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death) in each study. Estimates from the individual studies were pooled using fixed effect meta-analysis. The 3 studies combined included 17 623 patients of whom 969 (5.5%) were either heterozygous or homozygous (n=23) carriers of factor V Leiden. During 1 year of follow-up, a total of 1289 (7.3%) patients developed major (n=559) or minor bleeding. Factor V Leiden was associated with a lower risk of combined major and minor bleeding (adjusted cause-specific HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56-1.00; P =0.046; I 2 =0%) but a comparable risk of major bleeding (adjusted cause-specific HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P =0.73; I 2 =0%). Adjusted pooled cause-specific HRs for the association of factor V Leiden with atherothrombotic events alone and in combination with bleeding events were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55-1.02; P =0.06; I 2 =0%) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P =0.007; I 2 =0%), respectively. Conclusions Given that the lower risk of bleeding conferred by factor V Leiden was not counterbalanced by a higher risk of atherothrombotic events, these findings warrant future assessment for personalized medicine such as selecting patients for extended or intensive antiplatelet therapy.

Background The prothrombotic defect factor V Leiden (FVL) may confer higher risk of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), compared with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome, and may be associated with more myocardial necrosis caused by higher thrombotic burden. Methods and Results Patients without history of cardiovascular disease were selected from 2 clinical trials conducted in patients with acute coronary syndrome. FVL was defined as G-to-A substitution at nucleotide 1691 in the factor V (factor V R506Q) gene. Odds ratios were calculated for the association of FVL with STEMI adjusted for age and sex in the overall population and in the subgroups including sex, age (≥70 versus <70 years), and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. The peak biomarker levels (ie, creatine kinase-myocardial band and high-sensitivity troponin I or T) after STEMI were contrasted between FVL carriers and noncarriers. Because of differences in troponin assays, peak high-sensitivity troponin levels were converted to a ratio scale. The prevalence of FVL mutation was comparable in patients with STEMI (6.0%) and non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (5.8%). The corresponding sex- and age-adjusted odds ratio was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.86-1.30; P =0.59) for the association of FVL with STEMI. Subgroup analysis did not show any differences. In patients with STEMI, neither the median peak creatine kinase-myocardial band nor the peak high-sensitivity troponin ratio showed any differences between wild-type and FVL carriers ( P for difference: creatine kinase-myocardial band=0.33; high sensitivity troponin ratio=0.54). Conclusions In a general population with acute coronary syndrome, FVL did not discriminate between a STEMI or non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome presentation and was unrelated to peak cardiac necrosis markers in patients with STEMI. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00391872 and NCT01761786.

Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing , and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background The cysteine protease legumain is increased in patients with atherosclerosis, but its causal role in atherogenesis and cardiovascular disease is still unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the association of legumain with clinical outcome in a large cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods and Results Serum levels of legumain were analyzed in 4883 patients with acute coronary syndrome from a substudy of the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial. Levels were analyzed at admission and after 1 month follow-up. Associations between legumain and a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction or stroke, and its individual components were assessed by multivariable Cox regression analyses. At baseline, a 50% increase in legumain level was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.04-1.21), P =0.0018, for the primary composite end point, adjusted for randomized treatment. The association remained significant after adjustment for important clinical and demographic variables (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19; P =0.013) but not in the fully adjusted model. Legumain levels at 1 month were not associated with the composite end point but were negatively associated with stroke (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.88; P =0.0069), including in the fully adjusted model (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88; P =0.0114). Conclusions Baseline legumain was associated with the primary outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome, but not in the fully adjusted model. The association between high levels of legumain at 1 month and decreased occurrence of stroke could be of interest from a mechanistic point of view, illustrating the potential dual role of legumain during atherogenesis and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00391872.

Background: New randomized, controlled trials have become available on oral P2Y 12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome. We aimed to evaluate current evidence comparing the efficacy and safety profile of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials., Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis and direct pairwise comparison analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes from 12 randomized controlled trials including a total of 52 816 patients with acute coronary syndrome., Results: In comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92]) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]), whereas there was no statistically significant mortality reduction with prasugrel (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.80-1.01] and HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.02], respectively). In comparison with each other, there were no significant differences in mortality (HR prasugrel versus ticagrelor, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.94-1.29] and 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]). In comparison with clopidogrel, prasugrel reduced myocardial infarction (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]), whereas ticagrelor showed no risk reduction (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.22]). Differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not statistically significant. Stent thrombosis risk was significantly reduced by both ticagrelor and prasugrel versus clopidogrel (28%-50% range of reduction). In comparison with clopidogrel, both prasugrel (HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]) and ticagrelor (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.04-1.55]) significantly increased major bleeding. There were no significant differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor for all outcomes explored., Conclusions: Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ischemic events and increased bleeding in comparison with clopidogrel. A significant mortality reduction was observed with ticagrelor only. There was no efficacy and safety difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019155648.

Background: The long-term prognostic impact of post-discharge bleeding in the unique population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unexplored., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between post-discharge bleeding and subsequent mortality after ACS according to index strategy (PCI or no PCI) and to contrast with the association between post-discharge myocardial infarction (MI) and subsequent mortality., Methods: In a harmonized dataset of 4 multicenter randomized trials (APPRAISE-2 [Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events-2], PLATO [Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes], TRACER [Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome], and TRILOGY ACS [Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes]), the association between post-discharge noncoronary artery bypass graft-related GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding (landmark 7 days post-ACS) and subsequent all-cause mortality was evaluated in a time-updated Cox proportional hazards analysis. Interaction with index treatment strategy was assessed. Results were contrasted with risk for mortality following post-discharge MI., Results: Among 45,011 participants, 1,133 experienced post-discharge bleeding events (2.6 per 100 patient-years), and 2,149 died during follow-up. The risk for mortality was significantly higher <30 days (adjusted hazard ratio: 15.7; 95% confidence interval: 12.3 to 20.0) and 30 days to 12 months (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.1 to 3.4) after bleeding, and this association was consistent in participants treated with or without PCI for their index ACS (p for interaction = 0.240). The time-related association between post-discharge bleeding and mortality was similar to the association between MI and subsequent mortality in participants treated with and without PCI (p for interaction = 0.696)., Conclusions: Post-discharge bleeding after ACS is associated with a similar increase in subsequent all-cause mortality in participants treated with or without PCI and has an equivalent prognostic impact as post-discharge MI., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an unprecedented challenge to healthcare worldwide. The infection can be life threatening and require intensive care treatment. The transmission of the disease poses a risk to both patients and healthcare workers. The number of patients requiring hospital admission and intensive care may overwhelm health systems and negatively affect standard care for patients presenting with conditions needing emergency interventions. This position statements aims to assist cardiologists in the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. To that end, we assembled a panel of interventional cardiologists and acute cardiac care specialists appointed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACVC) and included the experience from the first and worst affected areas in Europe. Modified diagnostic and treatment algorithms are proposed to adapt evidence-based protocols for this unprecedented challenge. Various clinical scenarios, as well as management algorithms for patients with a diagnosed or suspected COVID-19 infection, presenting with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation ACS are described. In addition, we address the need for re-organization of ACS networks, with redistribution of hub and spoke hospitals, as well as for in-hospital reorganization of emergency rooms and cardiac units, with examples coming from multiple European countries. Furthermore, we provide a guidance to reorganization of catheterization laboratories and, importantly, measures for protection of healthcare providers involved with invasive procedures.

Aims: We investigated the dynamics, associations with patient characteristics, other biomarkers, and clinical outcomes of pentraxin 3 in acute coronary syndrome., Methods and Results: In multivariate analyses, pentraxin 3 measured in 5154 patients randomised in the Platelet Inhibition and Patients Outcomes (PLATO) trial (NCT00391872) was compared with leukocytes, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, cystatin C, N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T and growth differentiation factor 15 concerning prediction of clinical outcome. Pentraxin 3 peaked earlier than high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and was more strongly correlated with N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin T than with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The frequency of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction or stroke by quartiles of pentraxin 3 at admission was 6.1%, 7.3%, 9.7% and 10.7%, respectively ( p <0.0001). The hazard ratio per 50% increase of pentraxin 3 was 1.13 (95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.19), p <0.0001. This association remained significant after stepwise adjustments for leukocytes/high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (1.09 (1.02-1.15)), p =0.009, interleukin-6 (1.07 (1.01-1.14)), p =0.026, and cystatin C (1.07 (1.00-1.13)), p =0.044, but not after adjustment for N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T and growth differentiation factor 15. Admission pentraxin 3 was also associated with several of the individual endpoint components (cardiovascular death/spontaneous myocardial infarction; p =0.008, cardiovascular death; p =0.026, and spontaneous myocardial infarction; p =0.017), but not with stroke. Pentraxin 3 measured in the chronic phase (i.e. at one month) was still predictive of the composite endpoint in univariate analysis (1.12 (1.04-1.20) per 50% increase) p =0.0024, but not after adjustment for the other biomarkers., Conclusion: Admission level of pentraxin 3 is a modestly stronger predictor than high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, but not than N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity troponin T, concerning cardiovascular outcome in acute coronary syndrome. Pentraxin 3 is more strongly correlated with N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide and high-sensitivity troponin T than with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

Hypofibrinolysis is a key abnormality in diabetes but the role of impaired clot lysis in predicting vascular events and mortality in this population is yet to be determined. We aimed to investigate the relationship between fibrin clot properties and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Plasma samples were collected at hospital discharge from 974 ACS patients with diabetes randomised to clopidogrel or ticagrelor in the PLATO trial. A validated turbidimetric assay was employed to study fibrin clot lysis and maximum turbidity. One-year rates of cardiovascular (CV) death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and PLATO-defined major bleeding events were assessed after sample collection. Hazard ratios (HRs) were determined using Cox proportional analysis. After adjusting for CV risk factors, each 50% increase in lysis time was associated with increased risk of CV death/MI (HR 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.44; p  = 0.026) and CV death alone (HR 1.38; 1.08-1.76; p  = 0.01). Similarly, each 50% increase in maximum turbidity was associated with increased risk of CV death/MI (HR 1.25; 1.02-1.53; p  = 0.031) and CV death alone (HR 1.49; 1.08-2.04; p  = 0.014). The relationship between lysis time and the combined outcome of CV death and MI remained significant after adjusting for multiple prognostic vascular biomarkers ( p  = 0.034). Neither lysis time nor maximum turbidity was associated with major bleeding events. Impaired fibrin clot lysis predicts 1-year CV death and MI in diabetes patients following ACS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:  URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT00391872., Competing Interests: W.S.: Speaker fee from Bayer. L.W.: Institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche Diagnostics, Merck & Co; consulting fees from Abbott; holds two patents involving GDF-15 licensed to Roche Diagnostics. S.K.J.: Institutional research grant, honoraria and consultant/advisory board fee from AstraZeneca; institutional research grant and consultant/advisory board fee from Medtronic; institutional research grants and honoraria from The Medicines Company; consultant/advisory board fees from Janssen, Bayer. A.S.: Institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche Diagnostics; consultancy fees from Olink Proteomics. K.G.: Institutional research grants from AstraZeneca. A.H.: Employed by AstraZeneca. R.A.A.: Research/educational support and consultancy fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Roche and Takeda. R.F.S.: Institutional research grants, consultancy fees, and honoraria from AstraZeneca; consultancy fees and honoraria from Bayer and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer; consultancy fees from Amgen, GlyCardial Diagnostics, Haemonetics, Novartis, Thromboserin and Idorsia., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Aims: Activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule (ALCAM) is upregulated during inflammation and involved in transmigration of leukocytes and T-cell activation. We hypothesized that ALCAM might be associated with recurrent events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Methods: ALCAM was measured in serum obtained on admission, at discharge, 1 month and 6 months in a subgroup of 5165 patients admitted with ACS and included in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial (NCT00391872). The association between ALCAM and the composite endpoint and its components, including cardiovascular (CV) death, non-procedural spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke during 1-year follow-up, was assessed by Cox proportional hazards models with incremental addition of clinical risk factors and biomarkers (including high-sensitivity troponin T, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and growth differentiation factor-15)., Results: The median (Q1-Q3) concentration of ALCAM at admission was 97 (80-116) ng/mL. A 50% higher level of ALCAM on admission was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.16 (95% confidence interval [1.00-1.34] p = 0.043) for the composite endpoint in fully adjusted analysis, mainly driven by the association with CV death (HR 1.45 [1.16-1.82] p = 0.0012)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS, admission level of ALCAM was independently associated with adverse outcome including CV death even after adjustment for established inflammatory and cardiac biomarkers., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The increased risk of non-cardiovascular death in patients receiving clopidogrel or prasugrel in comparison with the placebo group in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) trial in contrast to the decreased risk of cardiovascular death and all-cause death seen in patients treated with low-dose ticagrelor in the EU label population of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, resulted in inclusion in the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines the recommendation for use of clopidogrel or prasugrel only if the patient is not eligible for treatment with ticagrelor. The prevalence of the primary outcome composed of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was lower in the low-dose rivaroxaban and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) group than in the ASA-alone group in the COMPASS trial. Moreover, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality rates were lower in the rivaroxaban-plus-ASA group. Comparison of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 and COMPASS trial patient characteristics clearly shows that each of these treatment strategies should be addressed at different groups of patients. A greater benefit in post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with a high risk of ischemic events and without high bleeding risk may be expected with ASA and ticagrelor 60 mg b.i.d. when the therapy is continued without interruption or with short interruption only after ACS. On the other hand, ASA and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. seems to be a better option when indications for dual antithrombotic therapy (DATT) appear after a longer time from ACS (more than 2 years) and/or from cessation of DAPT (more than 1 year) and in patients with multiple vascular bed atherosclerosis. Thus, both options of DATTs complement each other rather than compete, as can be presumed from the recommendations. However, a direct comparison between these strategies should be tested in future clinical trials.

Regulatory authorities interpret the results of randomized controlled trials according to published principles. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is planning a revision of the 2000 and 2003 guidance documents on clinical investigation of new medicinal products for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to achieve consistency with current knowledge in the field. This manuscript summarizes the key output from a collaborative workshop, organized by the Cardiovascular Round Table and the European Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology, involving clinicians, academic researchers, trialists, European and US regulators, and pharmaceutical industry researchers. Specific questions in four key areas were selected as priorities for changes in regulatory guidance: patient selection, endpoints, methodologic issues and issues related to the research for novel agents. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) should be studied separately for therapies aimed at the specific pathophysiology of either condition, particularly for treatment of the acute phase, but can be studied together for other treatments, especially long-term therapy. Unstable angina patients should be excluded from acute phase ACS trials. In general, cardiovascular death and reinfarction are recommended for primary efficacy endpoints; other endpoints may be considered if specifically relevant for the therapy under study. New agents or interventions should be tested against a background of evidence-based therapy with expanded follow-up for safety assessment. In conclusion, new guidance documents for randomized controlled trials in ACS should consider changes regarding patient and endpoint selection and definitions, and trial designs. Specific requirements for the evaluation of novel pharmacological therapies need further clarification.

Background: We aimed to assess associations between circulating IL-18 concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Hypothesis and Methods: Plasma IL-18 concentrations were measured at admission, discharge, 1 month, and 6 months in patients with ACS in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Associations with outcomes were evaluated with Cox regression models on the composite of CV death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (sMI), or stroke; and on CV death or sMI separately, including adjustment for clinical risk factors and biomarkers (cTnT-hs, NT-proBNP, cystatin C, CRP-hs, and GDF-15)., Results: Median IL-18 concentrations at baseline, discharge, 1 month, and 6 months were 237, 283, 305, and 320 ng/L (n = 16 636). Male sex, obesity, diabetes, and plasma levels of cystatin C, GDF-15, and CRP-hs were independently associated with higher IL-18 levels. Higher baseline IL-18 levels were associated with the composite endpoint and with CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.02-1.07 and HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.14, respectively, per 25% increase of IL-18 levels). Associations remained significant after adjustment for clinical variables but became non-significant after adjustment for all biomarkers (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.04 and HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, respectively). There were no associations with sMI., Conclusions: In ACS patients, IL-18 concentrations increased after the acute event and remained increased for 6 months. Baseline IL-18 levels were significantly associated with CV mortality, independent of clinical characteristics and indicators of renal/cardiac dysfunction but this association was attenuated after adjustment for multiple biomarkers., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction : Potent platelet inhibition reduces the risk of thrombotic complications including myocardial infarction and death in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Targeting different pathways involved in thrombotic processes have synergistic effects and more effectively counteract thrombosis both in the acute and long-term following an ACS. Unavoidably, more potent platelet inhibition increases the risk of bleeding. In light of the adverse prognostic implications associated with bleeding, including increased mortality, safety aspects with antiplatelet therapy have gained increased importance. Areas covered : This review aims at describing the safety of different antiplatelet agents, particularly with regards to the risk of bleeding complications, used in the management of ACS patients. New bleeding reduction strategies to enhance the safety of antiplatelet therapy are also reviewed. Expert opinion : The final goal of a well-structured antiplatelet treatment strategy is that of tackling the spectrum of ischemic risk without compromising patient safety. A simple mnemonic rule for guiding therapeutic decisions in this complex clinical scenario can be summarized with the acronym 'ABC', meaning the sequential process of assessing, balancing and customizing treatment strategies in individual patients on the tradeoff between bleeding and ischemic risk. This approach is recommended for maximizing the ischemic benefits, while preserving safety, with the use of antiplatelet therapy.

Objective: The chemokine CXCL16 (C-X-C motif ligand 16) is a scavenger receptor for OxLDL (oxidized low-density lipoproteins) and involved in inflammation at sites of atherosclerosis. This study aimed to investigate the association of CXCL16 with clinical outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Approach and Results: Serial measurements of CXCL16 were performed in a subgroup of 5142 patients randomized in the PLATO trial (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcome). Associations between CXCL16 and a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction or stroke, and the individual components were assessed by multivariable Cox regression analyses. The hazard ratio per 50% increase in admission levels of CXCL16 analyzed as continuous variable was 1.64 (95% CI, 1.44-1.88), P <0.0001. This association remained statistically significant after adjustment for randomized treatment, clinical variables, CRP (C-reactive protein), leukocytes, cystatin C, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide), troponin T, GDF-15 (growth differentiation factor 15), and other biomarkers; hazard ratio 1.23 (1.05-1.45), P =0.0126. The admission level of CXCL16 was independently associated with cardiovascular death (1.50 [1.17-1.92], P =0.0014) but not with ischemic events alone, in fully adjusted analyses. No statistically independent association was found between CXCL16 measured at 1 month, or change in CXCL16 from admission to 1 month, and clinical outcomes., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, admission level of CXCL16 is independently related to adverse clinical outcomes, mainly driven by an association to cardiovascular death. Thus, CXCL16 measurement may enhance risk stratification in patients with this condition., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and abnormal glucose metabolism are associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease. We investigated the prevalence and prognostic importance of dysglycaemia in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Diabetes was defined as known diabetes or HbA1c ≥ 6.5% or non-fasting glucose ≥ 11.1 mmol/L on admission, prediabetes as HbA1c ≥ 5.7% but < 6.5%, and no diabetes as HbA1c < 5.7%. The primary endpoint was the composite of CV death, spontaneous myocardial infarction type 1 (sMI) or stroke at 12 months. Multivariable Cox regression models, adjusting for baseline characteristics, and biomarkers NT-proBNP and troponin I, were used to explore the association between glycaemia and outcome. On admission, 16,007 (86.1%) patients had HbA1c and/or glucose levels available and were subdivided into DM 38.5% (6160) (1501 patients had no previous DM diagnosis), prediabetes 38.8% (6210), and no DM 22.7% (3637). Kaplan Meier event rates at 12 months for CV death, sMI or stroke per subgroups were 14.5% (832), 9.0% (522), and 8.5% (293), respectively with multivariable adjusted HRs, versus no diabetes, for diabetes: 1.71 (1.50-1.95) and for prediabetes 1.03 (0.90-1.19). Corresponding event rates for CV death were 6.9% (391), 3.4% (195) and 3.0% (102), respectively, with adjusted HRs for patients with DM of: 1.92 (1.42-2.60) and for prediabetes 1.02 (0.79-1.32). Abnormal glucose metabolism is common in ACS patients, but only patients with definite DM have an increased CV risk, indicating that prediabetes is not immediately associated with worse CV outcomes.

Aims: In the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART), bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. We assessed whether the access site had an impact on the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days and whether it interacted with bivalirudin/unfractionated heparin., Methods and Results: A total of 6006 patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised to either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Arterial access was left to the operator discretion. Overall, 90.5% of patients underwent transradial access and 9.5% transfemoral access. Baseline risk was higher in transfemoral access. The unadjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was lower with transradial access (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.67, p <0.001) and remained lower after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.84, p <0.001). Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.60, p <0.001) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.75, p <0.001). There was no interaction between treatment with bivalirudin and access site for the primary endpoint ( p =0.976) or major bleeding ( p =0.801)., Conclusions: Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. Bivalirudin was not associated with less bleeding, irrespective of access site.

Aims: Randomized clinical trials have consistently demonstrated the non-inferiority of bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with respect to DES having permanent polymers (PP-DES). To date, the comparative performance of BP- and PP-DES in the real world has not been extensively investigated., Methods and Results: From October 2011 to June 2016, we analysed the outcomes associated with newer generation DES use in Sweden. After stratification according to the type of DES received at the index procedure, a total of 16 504 and 79 106 stents were included in the BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for restenosis at 2 years were 1.2% and 1.4% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was low in both groups (0.5% and 0.7% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for either restenosis or definite ST did not differ between BP- and PP-DES [adjusted HR 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.21; P = 0.670 and adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09; P = 0.151, respectively]. Similarly, there were no differences in the adjusted risk of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI) between the two groups (adjusted HR for all-cause death 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25; P = 0.918 and adjusted HR for MI 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19; P = 0.404)., Conclusion: In a large, nationwide, and unselected cohort of patients, percutaneous coronary intervention with BP-DES implantation was not associated with an incremental clinical benefit over PP-DES use at 2 years follow-up., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Heart failure (HF) following acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with worse prognosis; however, the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in patients with HF and if ticagrelor influences the risk of new-onset HF are unknown., Methods: We examined the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in patients with ACS in the randomized PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subdivided by strata: (1) previous HF and/or clinical signs of HF on admission or (2) no HF on admission. The primary outcome was the combination of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke evaluated by multivariable Cox regression models. The safety outcome was major bleeding. New-onset HF was defined as an HF event after discharge in patients without previous HF., Results: Data were available in 18,556 patients, whom 2,862 (15.4%) patients had HF, including 1,584 (8.5%) patients with previous HF. Patients randomized to ticagrelor had lower risk of the composite end point regardless of HF status: hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73-1.03) in patients with HF and HR 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93) in patients with no HF (P = .76). Corresponding HR for major bleeding were HR 1.08 (95% CI: 0.87-1.34) and HR 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94-1.14) (P = .71). There was no difference in new-onset HF at 12 months between patients randomized to ticagrelor (4.1%, n = 278) or clopidogrel (4.0%, n = 276)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS, ticagrelor is more efficacious in protecting against new ischemic events and mortality than clopidogrel irrespective of the presence of HF. There is no difference between ticagrelor or clopidogrel treatment in new-onset HF post-ACS., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Physician behavior in response to knowledge of a patient's CYP2C19 clopidogrel metabolizer status is unknown., Objective: To investigate the association of mandatory reporting of CYP2C19 pharmacogenomic testing, provided to investigators with no direct recommendations on how to use these results, with changes in P2Y12 inhibitor use, particularly clopidogrel, in the Randomized Trial to Compare the Safety of Rivaroxaban vs Aspirin in Addition to Either Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndrome (GEMINI-ACS-1) clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: The GEMINI-ACS-1 trial compared rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice daily, with aspirin, 100 mg daily, plus open-label clopidogrel or ticagrelor (provided), in patients with recent acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The trial included 371 clinical centers in 21 countries and 3037 patients with ACS. Data were analyzed between May 2017 and February 2019., Interventions: Investigators were required to prestipulate their planned response to CYP2C19 metabolizer status. In response to a regulatory mandate, results for all patients were reported to investigators approximately 1 week after randomization., Main Outcomes and Measures: Reasons for switching P2Y12 inhibitors and occurrence of bleeding and ischemic events were collected., Results: Of 3037 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [9.0] years; 2275 men [74.9%], and 2824 white race/ethnicity [93.0%]), investigators initially treated 1704 (56.1%) with ticagrelor and 1333 (43.9%) with clopidogrel. Investigators prestipulated that they would use CYP2C19 metabolizer status to change P2Y12 inhibitor in 48.5% of genotyped clopidogrel-treated patients (n = 642 of 1324) and 5.5% of genotyped ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 93 of 1692). P2Y12 inhibitor switching for any reason occurred in 197 patients and was more common in patients treated with ticagrelor (146 of 1704 [8.6%]) compared with clopidogrel (51 of 1333 [3.8%]). Of patients initially treated with ticagrelor, only 1 (0.1% overall; 0.7% of all who switched) was switched based on CYP2C19 status. Of patients initially treated with clopidogrel, 23 (1.7% overall,;45.1% of all who switched) were switched owing to metabolizer status. Of 48 patients (3.6%) with reduced metabolizer status treated initially with clopidogrel, 15 (31.3%) were switched based on metabolizer status, including 48.1% (13 of 27) in which switching was prestipulated., Conclusions and Relevance: Physicians were evenly split on how to respond to knowledge of CYP2C19 metabolizer status in clopidogrel-treated patients. Mandatory provision of this information rarely prompted P2Y12 inhibitor switching overall, including a minority of patients with reduced metabolizer status. These findings highlight the clinical equipoise among physicians regarding use of this information and the reluctance to use information from routine genotyping in the absence of definitive clinical trial data demonstrating the efficacy of this approach., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02293395.

Background There are limited data on how the combination of diabetes mellitus ( DM ) and chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) affects cardiovascular outcomes as well as response to different P2Y 12 receptor antagonists, which represented the aim of the present investigation. Methods and Results In this post hoc analysis of the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial, which randomized acute coronary syndrome patients to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, patients (n=15 108) with available DM and CKD status were classified into 4 groups: DM +/ CKD + (n=1058), DM +/ CKD - (n=2748), DM -/ CKD + (n=2160), and DM -/ CKD - (n=9142). The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The primary safety end point was PLATO major bleeding. DM +/ CKD + patients had a higher incidence of the primary end point compared with DM -/ CKD - patients (23.3% versus 7.1%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.22; 95% CI 1.88-2.63; P<0.001). Patients with DM +/ CKD - and DM -/ CKD + had an intermediate risk profile. The same trend was shown for the individual components of the primary end point and for major bleeding. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor reduced the incidence of the primary end point consistently across subgroups ( P-interaction=0.264), but with an increased absolute risk reduction in DM +/ CKD +. The effects on major bleeding were also consistent across subgroups ( P-interaction=0.288). Conclusions In acute coronary syndrome patients, a gradient of risk was observed according to the presence or absence of DM and CKD , with patients having both risk factors at the highest risk. Although the ischemic benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was consistent in all subgroups, the absolute risk reduction was greatest in patients with both DM and CKD . Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicatrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 00391872.

Objective- The Wnt/wingless signaling antagonist DKK1 (dickkopf-1) regulates platelet-mediated inflammation and may contribute to plaque destabilization. We hypothesized that DKK1 would be associated with cardiovascular outcomes. Approach and Results- We determined DKK1 levels in serum samples obtained before randomization, at discharge, and 1 and 6 months in a subset of 5165 patients with acute coronary syndromes in the PLATO trial (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes; NCT00391872). The median (interquartile range) DKK1 concentrations were 0.61 (0.20-1.27) ng/mL at baseline and increased during follow-up. The hazard ratio (95% CIs) for the composite end point (cardiovascular death, nonprocedural spontaneous myocardial infarction, or stroke) during 1 year of follow-up, per 50% increase in baseline DKK1 concentration, was 1.06 (1.02-1.10), P=0.0011, and remained significant in fully adjusted analysis with 14 conventional clinical and demographic and 6 biochemical variables, including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), hs-TnT (high-sensitivity troponin T), and GDF-15 (growth differentiation factor 15; 1.05 [1.00-1.09]; P=0.028). This association was mainly driven by the association with cardiovascular death, where a gradual increase in event rates was observed with increasing quartiles of DKK1 (2.7%, 3.0%, 4.3%, and 5.0%) and remained significant and unmodified in fully adjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 1.10 [1.04-1.17]; P=0.002). Change in DKK1 and levels at 1 month were unrelated to outcomes. A modifying effect of ticagrelor on DKK1 discharge levels was observed but not associated with prognosis. Conclusions- In patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with dual antiplatelet treatment, admission DKK1 levels were independently associated with a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and with cardiovascular death alone.

In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) study, the P2Y 12 inhibitors ticagrelor and clopidogrel were compared in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Ticagrelor was shown to reduce occurrence of the primary end point - a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke - compared to clopidogrel. Ticagrelor's pleiotropic effects on reuptake of adenosine via inhibition of equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT1) have been hypothesized to contribute to this. Several polymorphisms of ENT1 are known to exist. We explored the interaction between ENT1 polymorphisms and clinical outcomes in ACS patients participating in the PLATO genetic substudy. Using genotyping data obtained in a genome-wide association study, the gene region encoding ENT1 was assessed and 94 polymorphisms were identified. After quality control filtering, data from 9943 participants were included. Subjects were divided into discovery (phase 1, n = 3970) and replication (phase 2, n = 5973) cohorts. Cox-regression analysis of the relationship between variants and seven efficacy and safety outcomes was performed in discovery, replication, and combined cohorts. Treatment-marker interactions were also determined. Although 35 variants were found with associations to the investigated outcomes reaching p < 0.05 in the discovery cohort, only one of these was replicated in phase 2 of the analysis and also reached the predetermined level of statistical significance in the combined data, taking into account the number of tests performed: the rare polymorphism rs141034817, with a frequency of 0.2%, was significantly associated with bleeding. Thirty-three treatment-marker interactions were found with a significance level of p < 0.05 in phase 1, but none was replicated in phase 2. We found no significant interaction between ENT1 genotype and clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, apart from the association between a rare polymorphism and bleeding that requires further study. If ticagrelor's pleiotropic effects on adenosine uptake are clinically relevant, these do not appear to be significantly affected by variation in the ENT1 gene.

Importance: Mortality remains at about 5% within a year after an acute coronary syndrome event. Prior studies have assessed biomarkers in relation to all-cause or cardiovascular deaths but not across multiple causes., Objective: To assess if different biomarkers provide information about the risk for all-cause and cause-specific mortality., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial randomized 18 624 patients with acute coronary syndrome to ticagrelor or clopidogrel from October 2006 through July 2008. In this secondary analysis biomarker substudy, 17 095 patients participated., Main Outcomes and Measures: Death due to myocardial infarction, heart failure, sudden cardiac death/arrhythmia, bleeding, procedures, other vascular causes, and nonvascular causes, as well as all-cause death., Exposures: At baseline, levels of cystatin-C, growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin I and T, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were determined., Results: The median (interquartile range) age of patients was 62.0 (54.0-71.0) years. Of 17 095 patients, 782 (4.6%) died during follow-up. The continuous associations between biomarkers and all-cause and cause-specific mortality were modeled using Cox models and presented as hazard ratio (HR) comparing the upper vs lower quartile. For all-cause mortality, NT-proBNP and GDF-15 were the strongest markers with adjusted HRs of 2.96 (95% CI, 2.33-3.76) and 2.65 (95% CI, 2.17-3.24), respectively. Concerning death due to heart failure, NT-proBNP was associated with an 8-fold and C-reactive protein, GDF-15, and cystatin-C, with a 3-fold increase in risk. Regarding sudden cardiac death/arrhythmia, NT-proBNP was associated with a 4-fold increased risk and GDF-15 with a doubling in risk. Growth differentiation factor-15 had the strongest associations with other vascular and nonvascular deaths and was possibly associated with death due to major bleeding (HR, 4.91; 95% CI, 1.39-17.43)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, baseline levels of NT-proBNP and GDF-15 were strong markers associated with all-cause death based on their associations with death due to heart failure as well as due to arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. Growth differentiation factor-15 had the strongest associations with death due to other vascular or nonvascular causes and possibly with death due to bleeding., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00391872.

Background: Although bradyarrhythmias have been observed with ticagrelor and its use with advanced atrioventricular block is not recommended, questions arise regarding its use in patients with mild conduction abnormalities. The objectives were to compare rates of clinically relevant arrhythmias in relation to any mild baseline conduction abnormality in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel., Methods: We included all subjects in the electrocardiographic (ECG) substudy of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial, excluding those with missing baseline ECG or with a pacemaker at baseline (N = 15,460). Conduction abnormality was defined as sinus bradycardia, first-degree atrioventricular block, hemiblock, or bundle-branch block. The primary arrhythmic outcome was the composite of any symptomatic brady- or tachyarrhythmia, permanent pacemaker placement, or cardiac arrest through 12 months., Results: Patients with baseline conduction abnormalities (n = 4,256, 27.5%) were older and more likely to experience the primary arrhythmic outcome. There were no differences by ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the composite arrhythmic end point in those with baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: 17% for both study arms; hazard ratio: 0.99 [0.86-1.15]) or without baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: clopidogrel 12.8% vs ticagrelor 12.4%; hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.88-1.09). There were also no statistically significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the rates of bradycardic (or any individual arrhythmic) events in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities., Conclusions: Ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel did not increase arrhythmic events even in subjects with acute coronary syndrome who present with mild conduction abnormalities on their baseline ECG., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are known to have an increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular events. However, the influence of concomitant PAD on first and subsequent recurrent ischemic events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains poorly characterized., Methods: We analyzed the combined data set from 4 randomized trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRA-CER, and TRILOGY ACS) in ACS for a follow-up length of 1 year. Using multivariable regression, we examined the association between PAD and major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Among patients with a nonfatal first event, we evaluated the incidence and type of a second recurrent event., Results: A total of 4,098 of 48,094 (8.5%) post-ACS patients had a history of PAD. The unadjusted frequency of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2-fold higher in patients with PAD (14.3% vs 7.5%) over a median (25th-75th) follow-up of 353 (223-365) days with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.48-1.78; P < .001). The frequency of recurrent ischemic events among those patients with a first, nonfatal event was higher among those with PAD (40.0% vs 27.7%). The relative frequency of each event type (cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) within first and subsequent ischemic events was similar regardless of PAD status at baseline., Conclusions: Patients with PAD have a significantly higher risk of first and recurrent ischemic events in the post-ACS setting. These findings highlight the opportunity for improved treatments in patients with PAD who experience an ACS., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: To determine whether fibrin clot properties are associated with clinical outcomes following acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods and Results: Plasma samples were collected at hospital discharge from 4354 ACS patients randomized to clopidogrel or ticagrelor in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. A validated turbidimetric assay was employed to study plasma clot lysis time and maximum turbidity (a measure of clot density). One-year rates of cardiovascular (CV) death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and PLATO-defined major bleeding events were assessed after sample collection. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. After adjusting for CV risk factors, each 50% increase in lysis time was associated with CV death/spontaneous MI [HR 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.31; P < 0.01] and CV death alone (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17-1.59; P < 0.001). Similarly, each 50% increase in maximum turbidity was associated with increased risk of CV death (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50; P = 0.024). After adjustment for other prognostic biomarkers (leukocyte count, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin C, N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and growth differentiation factor-15), the association with CV death remained significant for lysis time (HR 1.2, 95% CI 1.01-1.42; P = 0.042) but not for maximum turbidity. These associations were consistent regardless of randomized antiplatelet treatment (all interaction P > 0.05). Neither lysis time nor maximum turbidity was associated with major bleeding events., Conclusion: Fibrin clots that are resistant to lysis independently predict adverse outcome in ACS patients. Novel therapies targeting fibrin clot properties might be a new avenue for improving prognosis in patients with ACS.

Background: Accurate 1-year bleeding risk estimation after hospital discharge for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may help clinicians guide the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy. Currently there are no predictive models for this purpose. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a simple clinical tool for bedside risk estimation of 1-year post-discharge serious bleeding in ACS patients., Methods: The risk score was derived and internally validated in the BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry, an observational international registry involving 15,401 patients surviving admission for ACS and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 2003 to 2014, engaging 15 hospitals from 10 countries located in America, Europe and Asia. External validation was conducted in the SWEDEHEART population, with 96,239 ACS patients underwent PCI and 93,150 without PCI., Results: Seven independent predictors of bleeding were identified and included in the BleeMACS score: age, hypertension, vascular disease, history of bleeding, malignancy, creatinine and hemoglobin. The BleeMACS risk score exhibited a C-statistic value of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) in the derivation cohort and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) in the internal validation sample. In the SWEDEHEART external validation cohort, the C-statistic was 0.65 (95% CI 0.64-0.66) for PCI patients and 0.63 (95% CI 0.62-0.64) for non-PCI patients. The calibration was excellent in the derivation and validation cohorts., Conclusions: The BleeMACS bleeding risk score is a simple tool useful for identifying those ACS patients at higher risk of serious 1-year post-discharge bleeding. ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT02466854., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elevated levels of osteoprotegerin, a secreted tumor necrosis factor-related molecule, might be associated with adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. We measured plasma osteoprotegerin concentrations on hospital admission, at discharge, and at 1 and 6 months after discharge in a predefined subset (n=5135) of patients with acute coronary syndromes in the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial., Methods and Results: The associations between osteoprotegerin and the composite end point of cardiovascular death, nonprocedural spontaneous myocardial infarction or stroke, and non-coronary artery bypass grafting major bleeding during 1 year of follow-up were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. Event rates of the composite end point per increasing quartile groups at baseline were 5.2%, 7.5%, 9.2%, and 11.9%. A 50% increase in osteoprotegerin level was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.42) for the composite end point but was not significant in adjusted analysis (ie, clinical characteristics and levels of C-reactive protein, troponin T, NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide], and growth differentiation factor-15). The corresponding rates of non-coronary artery bypass grafting major bleeding were 2.4%, 2.2%, 3.8%, and 7.2%, with an unadjusted HR of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.36-1.69), and a fully adjusted HR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.09-1.46). The multivariable association between the osteoprotegerin concentrations and the primary end point after 1 month resulted in an HR of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.89-1.33); for major bleeding after 1 month, the HR was 1.33 (95% CI, 0.91-1.96)., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with dual antiplatelet therapy, osteoprotegerin was an independent marker of major bleeding but not of ischemic cardiovascular events. Thus, high osteoprotegerin levels may be useful in increasing awareness of increased bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving antithrombotic therapy., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872., (© 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Background: Most diabetes and cardiovascular studies have been conducted in white patients, with data being extrapolated to other population groups., Methods: For this analysis, patient-level data were extracted from 5 randomized clinical trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome; we compared obesity levels between Asian and white populations, stratified by diabetes status. By using an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular outcomes after an acute coronary syndrome were determined., Results: We identified 49,224 patient records from the 5 trials, with 3176 Asians and 46,048 whites. Whites with diabetes had higher body mass index values than those without diabetes (median 29.3 vs 27.2 kg/m 2 ; P < .0001), whereas Asians with diabetes and without diabetes had similar body mass index (24.7 vs 24.2 kg/m 2 ). Asians with diabetes (HR, 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.02), whites with diabetes (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25), and Asians without diabetes (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.64) had higher rates of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days than whites without diabetes. Asians with diabetes (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31), whites with diabetes (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.33-1.62), and Asians without diabetes (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11-1.73) had higher rates of death at 1 year compared with whites without diabetes. There were no significant interactions between race and diabetes for ischemic outcomes., Conclusions: Although Asians with diabetes and acute coronary syndrome are less likely to be obese than their white counterparts, their risk for death or recurrent ischemic events was not lower., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Current guidelines for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) recommend early invasive treatment in intermediate-to-high risk patients based on medical history, electrocardiogram (ECG) and elevated troponin. Patients with normal levels of cardiac troponin measured with a high-sensitivity method (cTnT-hs) might not benefit from early invasive procedures., Methods and Results: In this Prospective Randomized Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) blood-core substudy, 1232 patients presented with NSTE-ACS had a high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (cTnT-hs) level <99 th percentile (<14 ng/l) at randomisation. The outcomes in relation to a planned invasive ( n=473) vs planned conservative treatment ( n=759), were evaluated by adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses. In patients with a normal cTnT-hs at randomisation, regardless of randomised treatment, a planned invasive vs conservative treatment was associated with a 2.3-fold higher risk (7.3% vs 3.4%, p=0.0028) for cardiovascular (CV) death or myocardial infarction (MI), driven by higher rates of procedure-related MI (3.4% vs 0.1%), while there were no differences in rates of CV death (1.3% vs 1.3%, p=0.72) or spontaneous MI (3.0% vs 2.1%, p=0.28). There were significantly more major bleeds (hazard ratio (HR) 2.98, p<0.0001), mainly due to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related (HR 4.05, p<0.0001) and non-CABG procedural-related major bleeding events (HR 5.31, p=0.0175), however there were no differences in non-procedure-related major bleeding (1.5% vs 1.9%, p=0.45). Findings were consistent for patients with a normal cTnI-hs at randomisation., Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS and normal cTnT-hs, a planned early invasive treatment strategy was associated with increased rates of procedure-related MI and bleeding but no differences in long-term spontaneous MI, non-procedure-related bleeding or mortality.