Search

Objectives: We sought to compare the procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography., Background: The radial artery (RA) is recommended as the vascular access of choice in patients undergoing coronary angiography and intervention. The procedural and clinical performance of dual- versus single-catheter strategy in patients undergoing transradial coronary angiography remains a matter of debate., Methods: This is a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials. The primary outcome was procedure time. The main secondary outcome was fluoroscopy time. Other outcomes of interest were contrast volume, crossover to other catheter strategy and RA spasm., Results: A total of 2,062 patients (978 randomly assigned to dual-catheter and 1,084 to single-catheter strategy) included in seven trials were available for the quantitative synthesis. A dual-catheter strategy was associated with procedure time (standardized mean difference [95% confidence intervals (CI)], 0.55 [-0.69, 1.78]; p = .32), fluoroscopy time (-0.36 [-2.39, 1.67]; p = .68) and contrast volume (-0.93 [-3.79, 1.94]; p = .44) comparable to a single-catheter strategy. The risk for crossover was lower (risk ratio [95% CI], 0.14 [0.03, 0.70]; p = .025) while the risk for RA spasm was higher (1.81 [1.54, 2.12]; p < .001) among patients assigned to dual- versus single-catheter strategy., Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides evidence for a comparable procedural performance of either dual- or single-catheter strategy for transradial coronary angiography. The fewer crossovers with dual-catheter strategy occur at the expense of more frequent radial artery spasm., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) demonstrated an increased risk of very late scaffold thrombosis (VLScT) in comparison with conventional drug-eluting stents. However, characterization of VLScT cases remains scant and the role of interim angiographic surveillance in identifying patients at risk of VLScT is unclear. We therefore set out to identify angiographic predictors of VLScT in our present case series., Methods: We analyzed a series of consecutive patients with VLScT presenting to two centers in Munich, Germany. Of interest, all patients had undergone interim planned surveillance angiography. Angiographic films were collected and reviewed and quantitative coronary angiography analysis was done at a core laboratory. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images at presentation with VLScT were analyzed in patients with available data., Results: Nine patients presented with 10 VLScT events. Mean age was 62.6 years. Surveillance angiography (between 159 and 476 days) were unremarkable in all cases. Time from index intervention to VLScT ranged from 393 to 1494 days. Nine of 10 events occurred after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy. Four patients underwent OCT. The dominant finding at the time of VLScT was scaffold discontinuity., Conclusions: In a series of patients with VLScT after treatment with BRS, routine interim surveillance angiography was available in all patients and failed to identify features predictive of subsequent adverse events., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MJ reports being a consultant for and receiving speaker fees from Biotronik and OrbusNeich. RAB reports lectures fees from B. Braun Melsungen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific and Micell Technologies and research funding to the institution from Boston Scientific and Celonova Biosciences. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The value of vascular closure devices (VCD) in women undergoing transfemoral catheterization has not been sufficiently investigated., Methods and Results: This is a sex-specific analysis of 1395 women enrolled in a large-scale, randomized, multicenter trial, in which patients undergoing transfemoral diagnostic coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to arteriotomy closure with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression (MC). Primary objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of 2 different VCD compared with MC regarding vascular access-site complications at 30 days. A secondary comparison was between 2 different types of contemporary VCD. Overall, women were at higher risk for vascular access-site complications compared with men (9.0% versus 6.4%; P=0.002). Vascular access-site complications were comparable in women assigned to VCD and MC (8.6% versus 9.8%; P=0.451). There was no interaction of treatment effect and sex ( P interaction =0.970). Time to hemostasis was significantly shortened with VCD compared with MC (1 [interquartile range, 0.5-2.0] minutes) versus 11 [interquartile range, 10-15] minutes; P<0.001); however, more women with VCD required repeat MC (2.4% versus 0.6%; P=0.018). The use of the intravascular compared with the extravascular VCD was associated with a numerical reduction in vascular access-site complications (6.6% versus 10.7%; P=0.027) and significant reductions in time to hemostasis and VCD failure., Conclusions: In women undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography via the common femoral artery, VCD and MC provided comparable safety, while time to hemostasis was reduced with VCD., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01389375.

Background: Angioplasty with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) is recommended for treatment of patients with coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) according to European clinical practice guidelines. Most clinical trials have investigated iopromide-based PCB and there is a paucity of data comparing efficacy against butyryl-tri-hexyl citrate (BTHC)-based PCB. Our aim was to compare the performance of two widely-used PCB in the treatment of coronary ISR., Methods: We analysed patients treated with BTHC- or iopromide-PCB for treatment of drug-eluting stent ISR in the setting of 2 consecutive trials with identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was diameter stenosis at 6-8month angiographic surveillance. The secondary endpoint of interest was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target-lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1year. Multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups., Results: In total, 264 patients were treated with BTHC-PCB (n=127) or iopromide-PCB (n=137). Baseline patient characteristics were similar for both groups. Post-procedure stenosis was slightly larger with BTHC-PCB (22.3 [SD 8.2]% vs. 18.4 [SD 9.9]%, P=0.001). At 6-8month angiography, diameter stenosis was 40.4 [SD 21.9]% vs. 37.4 [SD 21.4]% in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (P=0.16, P adjusted =0.32). At 1year, death, MI or TLR occurred in 29 (23.2%) vs. 32 (23.4%) patients in the BTHC-PCB and iopromide-PCB groups, respectively (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.62-1.70], P=0.91, P adjusted =0.96)., Conclusions: In patients undergoing intervention for ISR, angioplasty with BTHC-PCB showed similar angiographic and clinical results at 1year compared with iopromide-PCB., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The frequency and pattern of progression or regression of coronary atherosclerosis in contemporary patients with diabetes remain unknown. This study included 605 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Two coronary angiographic examinations at baseline and after 2 years were performed. The analysis focused on non-stented segments with diameter stenosis ≥25 %. Atherosclerosis progression (or regression) was defined as a decrease (or increase) in the mean minimal lumen diameter (MLD) in the 2-year angiogram compared to mean MLD in the baseline angiogram of >0.2 mm. Statins were prescribed in 576 patients (95.2 %). The primary outcome was atherosclerosis progression or regression in the 2-year angiogram. One hundred sixty-nine patients (28 %) had diabetes. Diabetic patients had greater reduction of mean MLD in the 24 angiogram compared to baseline angiogram than nondiabetic patients (0.11 ± 0.18 vs. -0.08 ± 0.15 mm, P < 0.001). Atherosclerosis progression was observed in 37 patients with diabetes and 16 nondiabetic patients (21.9 vs. 3.7 %; P < 0.001). Atherosclerosis regression was observed in two diabetic patients and 78 nondiabetic patients (1.2 vs. 17.9 %; P < 0.001). A progression pattern across all coronary segments was observed in 70 patients (41.4 %) with diabetes and 60 patients (13.8 %) without diabetes (P < 0.001). Diabetic patients with a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥70 mg/dl showed more atherosclerosis progression than diabetic patients with LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl (delta-MLD: 0.12 ± 0.19 vs. 0.08 ± 0.16 mm; P = 0.04). In conclusion, in contemporary patients with CAD treated with moderate-intensity statin therapy, diabetes is associated with the increased risk of progression and decreased probability of regression of coronary atherosclerosis.

Importance: The role of vascular closure devices (VCD) for the achievement of hemostasis in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains controversial., Objective: To compare outcomes with the use of 2 hemostasis strategies after diagnostic coronary angiography performed via transfemoral access-a VCD-based strategy with 2 types of devices, an intravascular device and an extravascular device, vs standard manual compression. The primary hypothesis to be tested was that femoral hemostasis achieved through VCD is noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications. A secondary objective was the comparison of the 2 types of VCD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, large-scale, multicenter, open-label clinical trial. We enrolled 4524 patients undergoing coronary angiography with a 6 French sheath via the common femoral artery from April 2011 through May 2014 in 4 centers in Germany. Last 30-day follow-up was performed in July 2014., Interventions: After angiography of the access site, patients were randomized to hemostasis with an intravascular VCD, extravascular VCD, or manual compression in a 1:1:1 ratio., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point: the composite of access site-related vascular complications at 30 days after randomization with a 2% noninferiority margin. Secondary end points: time to hemostasis, repeat manual compression, and VCD failure. An α-level of .025 was chosen for primary and secondary comparisons., Results: Of the 4524 enrolled patients, 3015 were randomly assigned to a VCD group (1509 received intravascular VCD and 1506 received extravascular VCD) and 1509 patients were randomly assigned to the manual compression group. Before hospital discharge, duplex sonography of the access site was performed in 4231 (94%) patients. The primary end point was observed in 208 patients (6.9%) assigned to receive a VCD and 119 patients (7.9%) assigned to manual compression (difference, -1.0% [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.7%]; P for noninferiority<.001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter in patients with VCD (1 minute [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.5-2.0]), vs manual compression (10 minutes [IQR, 10-15]; P < .001). Time to hemostasis was significantly shorter among patients with intravascular VCD (0.5 minute [IQR, 0.2-1.0]), vs extravascular VCD (2.0 minutes [IQR, 1.0-2.0]; P <.001) and closure device failure was also significantly lower among those with intravascular vs extravascular VCD (80 patients [5.3%], vs 184 patients [12.2%]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography, VCDs were noninferior to manual compression in terms of vascular access-site complications and reduced time to hemostasis., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01389375.

Aims: Vascular closure devices (VCD) have been introduced into clinical practice with the aim of increasing the procedural efficiency and clinical safety of coronary angiography. However, clinical studies comparing VCD and manual compression have yielded mixed results, and large randomised clinical trials comparing the two strategies are missing. Moreover, comparative efficacy studies between different VCD in routine clinical use are lacking., Methods and Results: The Instrumental Sealing of ARterial puncture site - CLOSURE device versus manual compression (ISAR-CLOSURE) trial is a prospective, randomised clinical trial designed to compare the outcomes associated with the use of VCD or manual compression to achieve femoral haemostasis. The test hypothesis is that femoral haemostasis after coronary angiography achieved using VCD is not inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications. Patients undergoing coronary angiography via the common femoral artery will be randomised in a 1:1:1 fashion to receive FemoSeal VCD, EXOSEAL VCD or manual compression. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite of arterial access-related complications (haematoma ≥5 cm, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, access-site-related bleeding, acute ipsilateral leg ischaemia, the need for vascular surgical/interventional treatment or documented local infection) at 30 days after randomisation. According to power calculations based on non-inferiority hypothesis testing, enrolment of 4,500 patients is planned. The trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT01389375)., Conclusions: The safety of VCD as compared to manual compression in patients undergoing transfemoral coronary angiography remains an issue of clinical equipoise. The aim of the ISAR-CLOSURE trial is to assess whether femoral haemostasis achieved through the use of VCD is non-inferior to manual compression in terms of access-site-related vascular complications.

Background: In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus-eluting stent (Cypher/Xience-V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR-TEST-4 patients with paired angiographic studies., Methods: Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in-stent late lumen loss, in-segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6-8-month follow-up angiogram., Results: Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST-4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6-8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in-stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in-segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79)., Conclusion: Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP-based limus-eluting stents are similar to those of PP-based limus-eluting stents., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Objectives: For patients with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) restenosis requiring reintervention, we compared a strategy of repeat SES (Cypher, Cordis, Miami Lakes, Florida) implantation with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) implantation., Background: Despite their high anti-restenotic efficacy, the widespread utilization of SES therapy has led to a significant absolute number of patients presenting with SES treatment failure. The optimal treatment strategy for such patients remains unclear., Methods: The ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 450 patients with clinically significant in-SES restenosis at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. After pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, all patients were randomly assigned to either SES or PES implantation. The primary end point was late lumen loss, based on in-stent analysis, at 6- to 8-month follow-up angiography. Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis >50%) at 6- to 8-month follow-up, target lesion revascularization, the composite of death or myocardial infarction, and definite stent thrombosis at 12 months., Results: Regarding anti-restenotic efficacy, there were no differences between SES and PES in late loss (0.40 +/- 0.65 mm vs. 0.38 +/- 0.59 mm; p = 0.85), binary restenosis (19.6% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.69), or target lesion revascularization (16.6% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.52). In terms of safety outcomes, the rates of death/myocardial infarction (6.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.86) and stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.4%; p > 0.99) were also similar., Conclusions: In cases of SES restenosis, treatment with either repeat SES or switch to PES was associated with a comparable degree of efficacy and safety. Drug resistance at an individual patient level may play a contributory role to the somewhat higher than expected late loss observed with the SES in the current study. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2 [ISAR-DESIRE 2]; NCT00598715)., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant.Objectives: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial.Methods: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis.Results: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58).Conclusions: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Cardiología (18855857) is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with acute coronary syndromes accounting for most of the cases. While the benefit of early revascularization has been clearly demonstrated in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), diagnostic pathways remain unclear in the absence of STEMI. We aimed to characterize OHCA patients presenting to 2 tertiary cardiology centers and identify predicting factors associated with survival. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 519 patients after OHCA from February 2003 to December 2017 at 2 centers in Munich, Germany. Patients undergoing immediate coronary angiography (CAG) were compared to those without. Multivariate regression analysis and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to identify predictors for improved outcome in a matched population. Results: Immediate CAG was performed in 385 (74.1%) patients after OHCA with presumed cardiac cause of arrest. As a result of multivariate analysis after propensity score matching, we found that immediate CAG, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) at admission, witnessed arrest and former smoking were associated with improved 30-days-survival [(OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26–0.84), (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.10–0.45), (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26–0.97), (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23–0.81)], and 1-year-survival [(OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19–0.82), (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12–0.7), (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.2–1.00), (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.14–0.63)]. Conclusions: In our study, immediate CAG, ROSC at admission, witnessed arrest and former smoking were independent predictors of survival in cardiac arrest survivors. Improvement in prehospital management including bystander CPR and best practice post-resuscitation care with optimized triage of patients to an early invasive strategy may help ameliorate overall outcome of this critically-ill patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced late outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents. However, assessment of extended long-term outcomes for these devices is lacking, especially regarding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent polymers. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year follow-up.Methods: Overall, 2603 patients were randomized to treatment with BP-SES (n=1299), PP-EES (n=652), or PP-SES (n=652). The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The main secondary end point of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. Follow-up at 10 years was available in 83% of the study patients.Results: The 10-year incidence of major adverse cardiac event (BP-SES 47.7% versus PP-EES 46.0% versus PP-SES 54.9%, P=0.003) and mortality (BP-SES 31.8% versus PP-EES 30.3% versus PP-SES 37.2%, P=0.02) was different among the groups. Definite/probable stent thrombosis was not significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.8% versus PP-EES 2.5% versus PP-SES 3.7%, P=0.09). Definite stent thrombosis was significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.1% versus PP-EES 0.8% versus PP-SES 2.4%, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and PP-EES.Conclusions: In this unique long-term outcome analysis, BP-SES and PP-EES showed comparable clinical outcomes out to 10 years. PP-SES had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00598676. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied.Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization.Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470).Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives The aim of the study was to investigate the association between gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) activity and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease (CAD). Design and methods The study included 1448 patients with diabetes and angiography-proven CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Baseline GGT measurements were available in all patients. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality. Results Patients were divided into 3 groups: a group consisting of patients with a GGT activity in the 1st tertile (GGT ≤ 29.4 U/L; n = 487), a group consisting of patients with a GGT activity in the 2nd tertile (GGT > 29.4–52.5 U/L; n = 479) and a group consisting of patients with GGT in the 3rd tertile (GGT > 52.5 U/L; n = 482). Overall, there were 179 deaths: 46 (11.9%), 49 (12.1%) and 84 deaths (21.4%) among patients of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd GGT tertiles, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.49, P = 0.011). Cardiac death occurred in 101 patients: 22 (5.8%), 30 (7.2%) and 49 deaths (12.9%) among patients of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd GGT tertiles, respectively (adjusted HR = 1.23 [0.96–1.58], P = 0.104, with risk estimates calculated per standard deviation increase in the logarithmic scale of GGT). GGT improved the risk prediction of models of all-cause (P = 0.020) but not cardiac (P = 0.135) mortality (P values show the difference in C-statistics between the models without and with GGT). Conclusion In patients with diabetes and CAD treated with PCI, elevated GGT was independently associated with the risk of 3-year all-cause mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]