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.

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.)

Background and Purpose: In patients with acute mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, the THALES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death) demonstrated that when added to aspirin, ticagrelor reduced stroke or death but increased risk of severe hemorrhage compared with placebo. The primary efficacy outcome of THALES included hemorrhagic stroke and death, events also counted in the primary safety outcome. We sought to disentangle risk and benefit, assess their relative impact, and attempt to identify subgroups with disproportionate risk or benefit., Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of patients with mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, patients were randomized within 24 hours after symptom onset to a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor plus aspirin or matching placebo plus aspirin. For the present analyses, we defined the efficacy outcome, major ischemic events, as the composite of ischemic stroke or nonhemorrhagic death, and defined the safety outcome, major hemorrhage, as intracranial hemorrhage or hemorrhagic death. Net clinical impact was defined as the combination of these 2 end points., Results: In 11 016 patients (5523 ticagrelor-aspirin and 5493 aspirin), a major ischemic event occurred in 294 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 359 patients (6.5%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk reduction 1.19% [95% CI, 0.31%–2.07%]). Major hemorrhage occurred in 22 patients (0.4%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 6 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (absolute risk increase 0.29% [95% CI, 0.10%–0.48%]). Net clinical impact favored ticagrelor-aspirin (absolute risk reduction 0.97% [95% CI, 0.08%–1.87%]). Findings were similar when different thresholds for disability were applied and over a range of predefined subgroups., Conclusions: In patients with mild-moderate ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack, ischemic benefits of 30-day treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin outweigh risks of hemorrhage., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Importance: Prior trials of dual antiplatelet therapy excluded patients with moderate ischemic stroke. These patients were included in the Acute Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial, but results have not been reported separately, raising concerns about safety and efficacy in this subgroup., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with moderate ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score of 4 to 5)., Design, Setting, and Participants: The THALES trial was a randomized trial conducted at 414 hospitals in 28 countries in January 2018 and December 2019. This exploratory analysis compared patients with moderate stroke (baseline NIHSS score of 4 to 5) with patients with less severe stroke (NIHSS score of 0 to 3). A total of 9983 patients with stroke were included in the present analysis, after excluding 2 patients with NIHSS scores greater than 5 and 1031 patients with transient ischemic attack. Data were analyzed from March to April 2021., Interventions: Ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily on days 2 to 30) or placebo within 24 hours after symptom onset. All patients received aspirin, 300 to 325 mg, on day 1 followed by aspirin, 75 to 100 mg, daily on days 2 to 30. Patients were observed for 30 additional days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to stroke or death within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was time to severe bleeding., Results: In total, 3312 patients presented with moderate stroke and 6671 presented with less severe stroke. Of those in the moderate stroke group, 1293 (39.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 64.5 (10.8) years; of those in the less severe stroke group, 2518 (37.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (11.2) years. The observed primary outcome event rate in patients with moderate stroke was 7.6% (129 of 1671) for those in the ticagrelor group and 9.1% (150 of 1641) for those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.06); the primary outcome event rate in patients with less severe stroke was 4.7% (158 of 3359) for those in the ticagrelor group and 5.7% (190 of 3312) for those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.01) (P for interaction = .88). Severe bleeding occurred in 8 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor group and in 4 patients (0.2%) in the placebo group in those with moderate stroke compared with 16 patients (0.5%) and 3 patients (0.1%), respectively, with less severe stroke (P for interaction = .26)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients with a moderate ischemic stroke had consistent benefit from ticagrelor plus aspirin vs aspirin alone compared with patients with less severe ischemic stroke, with no further increase in the risk of intracranial bleeding or other severe bleeding events., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354429.

Purpose: Describe CYP2C19 sequencing results in the largest series of clopidogrel-treated cases with stent thrombosis (ST), the closest clinical phenotype to clopidogrel resistance. Evaluate the impact of CYP2C19 genetic variation detected by next-generation sequencing (NGS) with comprehensive annotation and functional studies., Methods: Seventy ST cases on clopidogrel identified from the PLATO trial (n = 58) and Mayo Clinic biorepository (n = 12) were matched 1:1 with controls for age, race, sex, diabetes mellitus, presentation, and stent type. NGS was performed to cover the entire CYP2C19 gene. Assessment of exonic variants involved measuring in vitro protein expression levels. Intronic variants were evaluated for potential splicing motif variations., Results: Poor metabolizers (n = 4) and rare CYP2C19*8, CYP2C19*15, and CYP2C19*11 alleles were identified only in ST cases. CYP2C19*17 heterozygote carriers were observed more frequently in cases (n = 29) than controls (n = 18). Functional studies of CYP2C19 exonic variants (n = 11) revealed 3 cases and only 1 control carrying a deleterious variant as determined by in vitro protein expression studies. Greater intronic variation unique to ST cases (n = 169) compared with controls (n = 84) was observed with predictions revealing 13 allele candidates that may lead to a potential disruption of splicing and a loss-of-function effect of CYP2C19 in ST cases., Conclusion: NGS detected CYP2C19 poor metabolizers and paradoxically greater number of so-called rapid metabolizers in ST cases. Rare deleterious exonic variation occurs in 4%, and potentially disruptive intronic alleles occur in 16% of ST cases. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of these variants in platelet aggregation and clopidogrel metabolism.

Background and Purpose: Among patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic strokes, those with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis of cervicocranial vasculature have the highest risk of recurrent vascular events., Methods: In the double-blind THALES (The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Ticagrelor and ASA for Prevention of Stroke and Death) trial, we randomized patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2-30) or placebo added to aspirin (300-325 mg on day 1 followed by 75-100 mg daily for days 2-30) within 24 hours of symptom onset. The present paper reports a prespecified analysis in patients with and without ipsilateral, potentially causal atherosclerotic stenosis ≥30% of cervicocranial vasculature. The primary end point was time to the occurrence of stroke or death within 30 days., Results: Of 11 016 randomized patients, 2351 (21.3%) patients had an ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis. After 30 days, a primary end point occurred in 92/1136 (8.1%) patients with ipsilateral stenosis randomized to ticagrelor and in 132/1215 (10.9%) randomized to placebo (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.96], P =0.023) resulting in a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19-171). In patients without ipsilateral stenosis, the corresponding event rate was 211/4387 (4.8%) and 230/4278 (5.4%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08]; P =0.23, P interaction =0.245). Severe bleeding occurred in 4 (0.4%) and 3 (0.2%) patients with ipsilateral atherosclerotic stenosis on ticagrelor and on placebo, respectively ( P =NS), and in 24 (0.5%) and 4 (0.1%), respectively, in 8665 patients without ipsilateral stenosis (hazard ratio=5.87 [95% CI, 2.04-16.9], P =0.001)., Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis comparing ticagrelor added to aspirin to aspirin alone, we found no treatment by ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis subgroup interaction but did identify a higher absolute risk and a greater absolute risk reduction of stroke or death at 30 days in patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis stenosis than in those without. In this easily identified population, ticagrelor added to aspirin provided a clinically meaningful benefit with a number needed to treat of 34 (95% CI, 19-171). Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Aims: To study the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of selatogrel, a novel P2Y12 receptor antagonist for subcutaneous administration, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS)., Methods and Results: In this double-blind, randomized study of 345 patients with CCS on background oral antiplatelet therapy, subcutaneous selatogrel (8 mg, n = 114; or 16 mg, n = 115) was compared with placebo (n = 116) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03384966). Platelet aggregation was assessed over 24 h (VerifyNow assay) and 8 h (light transmittance aggregometry; LTA). Pharmacodynamic responders were defined as patients having P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) <100 at 30 min post-dose and lasting ≥3 h. At 30 min post-dose, 89% of patients were responders to selatogrel 8 mg, 90% to selatogrel 16 mg, and 16% to placebo (P < 0.0001). PRU values (mean ± standard deviation) were 10 ± 25 (8 mg), 4 ± 10 (16 mg), and 163 ± 73 (placebo) at 15 min and remained <100 up to 8 h for both doses, returning to pre-dose or near pre-dose levels by 24 h post-dose. LTA data showed similarly rapid and potent inhibition of platelet aggregation. Selatogrel plasma concentrations peaked ∼30 min post-dose. Selatogrel was safe and well-tolerated with transient dyspnoea occurring overall in 7% (16/229) of patients (95% confidence interval: 4-11%)., Conclusions: Selatogrel was rapidly absorbed following subcutaneous administration in CCS patients, providing prompt, potent, and consistent platelet P2Y12 inhibition sustained for ≥8 h and reversible within 24 h. Further studies of subcutaneous selatogrel are warranted in clinical scenarios where rapid platelet inhibition is desirable., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Trials have evaluated the use of clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent stroke after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vascular events or death after stroke or TIA. The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied., Methods: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving patients who had had a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe stroke), or TIA and who were not undergoing thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily) or matching placebo plus aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were first subsequent ischemic stroke and the incidence of disability within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was severe bleeding., Results: A total of 11,016 patients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Ischemic stroke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004). The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (P = 0.001)., Conclusions: Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THALES ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT03354429.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

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.)

Objectives: To compare effectiveness of warfarin and antiplatelet exposure regarding both thrombotic and bleeding events, following surgical aortic valve replacement with a biological prosthesis(bioSAVR)., Methods: The study included all patients in Sweden undergoing a bioSAVR during 2008-2014 who were alive at discharge from the index hospital stay. Exposure was analysed and defined as postdischarge dispension of any antithrombotic pharmaceutical, updated at each following dispensions and categorised as single antiplatelet (SAPT), warfarin, warfarin combined with SAPT, dual antiplatelet (DAPT) or no antithrombotic treatment. Exposure to SAPT was used as comparator. Outcome events were all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, any thromboembolism and major bleedings. We continuously updated adjustments for comorbidities with any indication for antithrombotic treatment by Cox regression analysis., Results: We identified 9539 patients with bioSAVR (36.8% women) at median age of 73 years with a mean follow-up of 3.13 years. As compared with SAPT, warfarin alone was associated with a lower incidence of ischaemic stroke (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.70) and any thromboembolism (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94) but with no difference in mortality (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). The incidence of haemorrhagic stroke (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.51) and major bleeding (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.15) was higher during warfarin exposure. As compared with SAPT, DAPT was not associated with any difference in ischaemic stroke or any thromboembolism. Risk-benefit analyses demonstrated that 2.7 (95% CI 1.0 to 11.9) of the ischaemic stroke cases could potentially be avoided per every haemorrhagic stroke caused by warfarin exposure instead of SAPT during the first year., Conclusion: In patients discharged after bioSAVR, warfarin exposure as compared with SAPT exposure was associated with lower long-term risk of ischaemic stroke and thromboembolic events, and with a higher incidence of bleeding events but with similar mortality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CC has received lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bristol Myers Squibb. SKJ has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Jansen and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Jansen and Bayer. AJ has received support for investigator-initiated studies, consultant fees and speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca and speaker’s honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim. LL, AA, ÖF and ES have no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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.

Advances in antiplatelet therapies for patients with cardiovascular disease have improved patient outcomes over time, but the challenge of balancing the risks of ischaemia and bleeding remains substantial. Moreover, many patients with cardiovascular disease have a residual risk of ischaemic events despite receiving antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, novel strategies are needed to prevent clinical events through mechanisms beyond platelet inhibition and with an acceptable associated risk of bleeding. The advent of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, which attenuate fibrin formation by selective inhibition of factor Xa or thrombin, has renewed the interest in dual-pathway inhibition strategies that combine an antiplatelet agent with an anticoagulant drug. In this Review, we highlight the emerging pharmacological rationale and clinical development of dual-pathway inhibition strategies for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with different manifestations of cardiovascular disease, such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease and peripheral artery disease.

Aims: Heparin is the preferred choice of anticoagulant in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (MI). An established dosage of heparin has not yet been determined, but treatment may be optimized through monitoring of activated clotting time (ACT). The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between heparin dose or ACT with a composite outcome of death, MI, or bleeding using data from the registry-based, randomized, controlled, and open-label VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial, although patients were not randomized to heparin dose in this substudy., Methods and Results: Patients with MI undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12-inhibitor and anticoagulation with heparin, without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), were enrolled in this substudy. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of death, MI, and bleeding at 30 days. The individual components and stent thrombosis were analysed separately. We divided patients into groups according to the initial dose of unfractionated heparin during PCI (<70 U/kg, 70-100 U/kg, and >100 U/kg) or ACT (ACT <250 s, 250-350 s, and >350 s) as well as investigating them as continuous variables in Cox proportional hazards models using univariable and multivariable analyses. No major differences were noted between heparin stratified in groups (P = 0.22) or heparin as a continuous variable in relation to the primary composite endpoint hazard ratio (HR) 1.0 confidence interval (CI) (0.99-1.01) for heparin dose/kg. No differences were found between ACT stratified in groups (P = 0.453) or ACT in seconds HR 1.0 CI (0.99-1.00) regarding the primary endpoint. The individual components of death, MI, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis were not significantly different across heparin doses or ACT levels either., Conclusion: We found no association between heparin dose or ACT levels and death, MI bleeding complications, or stent thrombosis. Therefore, there is no strong support for a specific heparin dose or mandatory ACT monitoring in patients treated with potent P2Y12-inhibitors with no planned GPI., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

Rationale: In patients with acute cerebral ischemia, the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during 90 days was reported to be non-significantly lower with ticagrelor compared with aspirin, with no increase in major hemorrhage. Dual antiplatelet therapy may be more effective in this setting., Aim: To investigate whether ticagrelor combined with aspirin are superior to aspirin alone in preventing stroke or death in patients with non-severe, non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack., Design: The Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated with Ticagrelor and Aspirin for Prevention of Stroke and Death (THALES) trial is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, event-driven study. Patients will be randomized within 24 h of onset of acute ischemic symptoms. THALES is expected to randomize 13,000 at ∼450 sites worldwide, to collect 764 primary outcome events. Study treatments are ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose on day 1, then 90 mg twice daily on days 2-30, or matching placebo. All patients will also receive open-label aspirin 300-325 mg on day 1, then 75-100 mg once daily on days 2-30., Study Outcomes: The primary efficacy outcome is time to the composite endpoint of stroke or death through 30-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome is time to first severe bleeding event., Discussion: The THALES trial will provide important information about the benefits and risks of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia in a global setting (funding: AstraZeneca)., Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03354429.

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor., Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population)., Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8-3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p interaction =0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78-1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75-1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48-2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36-3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74-1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p interaction =0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI., Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Aims: This nationwide study aimed to analyse the first 2 years of routine clinical use of cangrelor in all Swedish patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: This observational Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) study identified 915 cangrelor-treated patients. As 899 were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-patients undergoing primary PCI, we decided to exclude all non-STEMI patients (n = 16) from the following analysis. We then identified all primary PCI patients, January 2016 to January 2018 (n = 10 816). Excluding hospitals without cangrelor use, tailoring time frames from first cangrelor use per hospital, patients treated with cangrelor (n = 899) were compared with those without cangrelor treatment (n = 4614). A separate analysis was performed for cardiac arrest STEMI patients (n = 273). Cangrelor-use in primary PCI varied greatly between hospitals (4-36%, mean 16%). At variance with randomized trials, cangrelor was used nearly exclusively in STEMI, often with cardiac arrest (19%). Cangrelor was combined with ticagrelor in two-thirds of patients, among which >50% was prehospital. Cangrelor was used more frequently in high-risk patients: left main PCI, thrombus aspiration, and cardiac arrest. Despite cangrelor being used in more high-risk patients, crude definite stent thrombosis rates at 30 days were low and similar in cangrelor (0.7%) and non-cangrelor treated patients (0.8%)., Conclusion: Cangrelor was used nearly exclusively in primary PCI STEMI patients, predominantly with ticagrelor. Despite being used in very high-risk patients, often with cardiac arrest, cangrelor treatment was associated with low stent thrombosis rates., (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: Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with higher ischemic risk, which can be mitigated by long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, concomitant high bleeding risk (HBR) may be present, making it unclear whether short- or long-term DAPT should be prioritized., Objectives: This study investigated the effects of ischemic (by PCI complexity) and bleeding (by PRECISE-DAPT [PREdicting bleeding Complications in patients undergoing stent Implantation and SubsequEnt Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy] score) risks on clinical outcomes and on the impact of DAPT duration after coronary stenting., Methods: Complex PCI was defined as ≥3 stents implanted and/or ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation stenting and/or stent length >60 mm, and/or chronic total occlusion revascularization. Ischemic and bleeding outcomes in high (≥25) or non-high (<25) PRECISE-DAPT strata were evaluated based on randomly allocated duration of DAPT., Results: Among 14,963 patients from 8 randomized trials, 3,118 underwent complex PCI and experienced a higher rate of ischemic, but not bleeding, events. Long-term DAPT in non-HBR patients reduced ischemic events in both complex (absolute risk difference: -3.86%; 95% confidence interval: -7.71 to +0.06) and noncomplex PCI strata (absolute risk difference: -1.14%; 95% confidence interval: -2.26 to -0.02), but not among HBR patients, regardless of complex PCI features. The bleeding risk according to the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction scale was increased by long-term DAPT only in HBR patients, regardless of PCI complexity., Conclusions: Patients who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischemic events, but benefitted from long-term DAPT only if HBR features were not present. These data suggested that when concordant, bleeding, more than ischemic risk, should inform decision-making on the duration of DAPT., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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: The dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score guides decisions on DAPT duration after coronary stenting by simultaneously predicting ischemic and bleeding risk., Objectives: This study sought to assess the performance of the DAPT score in a nationwide real-world population., Methods: The study used register data in Sweden (2006 to 2014) and followed 41,101 patients who had undergone 12 months of event-free DAPT, from months 12 to 30 after stenting. Risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (MI, stroke, and all-cause death), and fatal or major bleeding were compared according to DAPT score., Results: The score had a discrimination of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.60) for MI or stent thrombosis, 0.54 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.55) for MACCE, and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.53) for fatal or major bleeding. Risk of MI or stent thrombosis was significantly increased at scores of ≥3 while MACCE risk followed a J-shaped pattern and increased at scores of ≥4. Absolute differences in fatal or major bleeding risk were small between scores. Event rates of ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients with high (≥2) and low (<2) scores differed compared to the DAPT Study from which the score was derived; fatal or major bleeding rates were approximately one-half of those in the placebo arm of the DAPT Study., Conclusions: In a nationwide population, the DAPT score did not adequately discriminate ischemic and bleeding risk, the relationship between score and ischemic risk did not correspond to the suggested decision rule for extended DAPT, and risk of bleeding was lower compared with the DAPT Study. The score and its decision rule may not be generalizable to real-world populations., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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: The effects of ticagrelor pretreatment in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is debated. This study investigated the effects of ticagrelor pretreatment on clinical outcomes in this patient group., Methods and Results: Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI were included from October 2010 to October 2014 in Sweden. Screening was done using the SWEDEHEART register (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies). A total of 7433 patients were included for analysis with 5438 patients receiving ticagrelor pretreatment and 1995 patients with ticagrelor given only in the catheterization laboratory. The primary end point of the study was 30-day event rates of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis. Secondary end points were mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis alone and major in-hospital bleeding. Crude event rates showed no difference in 30-day composite end point (6.2% versus 6.5%; P=0 .69), mortality (4.5% versus 4.7%; P=0 .86), MI (1.6% versus 1.7%; P=0 .72), or stent thrombosis (0.5% versus 0.4%; P=0 .80) with ticagrelor pretreatment. Three different statistical models were used to correct for baseline differences. No difference in the composite end point, mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis was seen between the 2 groups after statistical adjustment. No increase in in-hospital major bleeding rate was observed with ticagrelor pretreatment., Conclusions: Ticagrelor pretreatment versus ticagrelor given in the catheterization laboratory in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI did not improve the composite end point of all-cause mortality or MI or stent thrombosis or its individual components at 30 days., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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.)

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y 12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y 12 inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y 12 inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y 12 inhibitors., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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.

The PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial showed that treatment with ticagrelor reduced the rate of death due to vascular causes, myocardial infarction and stroke when compared to clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS). While the comparative benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel increased over time, event rates accrued in both groups during the study period. The purpose of our biomarker-based exploratory analysis was to determine whether long-term platelet inhibition may be associated with platelet adaptation. A sample of 4000 participants from the PLATO trial also consented to participate in a prospectively designed biomarker substudy. Blood samples were procured at baseline, immediately prior to hospital discharge and at 1 and 6 months. Markers of platelet activity, including platelet count, serum CD40-ligand and soluble P-selectin were analyzed. Mean levels were compared at discharge, 1 and 6 months following study drug initiation-first for all patients and subsequently stratified by treatment group. A linear mixed model was used to estimate the short-term change rate (baseline to 1 month) and long-term change rate (1-6 months) for each biomarker. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios for each change in biomarker over the two time periods examined: baseline to 1 month and 1 to 6 months. Prior to randomized treatment (baseline), sCD40 ligand and sP-selectin levels were elevated above the normal range of the assay (0.39 and 33.5 µg/L, respectively). The mean level of each biomarker was significantly different at 1 month compared to baseline (p < 0.0001). When stratified by treatment group, at 1 month patients treated with ticagrelor had a larger increase in platelet count compared to those treated with clopidogrel (p < 0.0001). Similarly, when comparing biomarker levels for all patients at 6 months with those at 1 month, each differed significantly (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between treatment groups during this time period. The rate of change for both platelet count and sP-selectin were significantly different between baseline and 1 month when compared to the 1 to 6-month time period (p < 0.0001). When comparing treatment groups, the rate of increase in platelets from baseline to 1 month was greater for patients treated with ticagrelor (p < 0.0001). This was no longer observed in the 1 to 6-month interval. Using a Cox proportional hazard model, the increase in platelet count from 1 to 6 months was associated with ischemic-thrombotic events, while sCD40 ligand decrease from 1 to 6 months was associated with hemorrhagic events. There were no differences between treatment groups for the associations with clinical endpoints. Dynamic changes in platelet count, sCD-40 ligand and sP-selectin occur over time among patients with ACS. Platelet-directed therapy with a P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor in combination with aspirin modestly impacts the expression of these biomarkers. Platelet count and sCD40 ligand may offer modest overall predictive value for future ischemic-thrombotic or hemorrhagic clinical events, respectively. The existence of a platelet adaptome and its overall clinical significance among patients at risk for thrombotic events will require a more in-depth and platelet-biology specific investigation.

Background: Growth differentiation factor-15 (GDF-15) is related to major bleeding when measured at initial presentation in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) treated with dual antiplatelet therapy. It is unknown whether follow-up measurements provide additional information. The objective of this study was to investigate whether GDF-15 measured 1 month after an ACS provides additional information beyond the baseline levels with regard to the risk of major bleeding., Methods and Results: GDF-15 was measured at baseline and at 1 month after an ACS in 4049 patients included in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. The association between 1-month GDF-15 level and non-coronary artery bypass grafting surgery-related major bleeding was assessed by a multivariable Cox model, adjusting for baseline GDF-15, age, anemia, impaired renal function, history of gastrointestinal bleeding, and sex. Elevated GDF-15 (>1800 ng/L) at 1 month was associated with an increased risk of non-coronary artery bypass grafting-related major bleeding (3.9% versus 1.2%; hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.89-6.06), independent of baseline GDF-15. Patients who had elevated GDF-15 levels at baseline and subsequent nonelevated GDF-15 at 1 month had a similar risk as patients who had nonelevated levels at both measurements., Conclusions: GDF-15 at 1 month after an ACS is related to the risk of bleeding during DAPT and provides additional information on the bleeding risk beyond baseline GDF-15 levels. GDF-15 levels may therefore be useful as part of decision support concerning long-term antithrombotic treatment in patients post-ACS., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Evaluation of antithrombotic treatments for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) requires balancing ischemic and bleeding risks to assess net benefit. We sought to compare the relative effects of ischemic and bleeding events on mortality., Methods: In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, we compared spontaneous ischemic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) with spontaneous major bleeding events (PLATO major, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] major, Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries [GUSTO] severe) with respect to risk of mortality using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. The comparison was performed using ratio of hazard ratios for mortality increase after ischemic vs bleeding events., Results: A total of 822 patients (4.4%) had ≥1 spontaneous ischemic event; 485 patients (2.6%), ≥1 spontaneous PLATO major bleed, 282 (1.5%), ≥1 spontaneous TIMI major bleed; and 207 (1.1%), ≥1 spontaneous severe GUSTO bleed. In patients who had both events, bleeding occurred first in most patients. Regardless of classification, major bleeding events were associated with increased short- and long-term mortality that were not significantly different from the increase associated with spontaneous ischemic events: ratio of hazard ratios (95% CIs) for short- and long-term mortality after spontaneous ischemic vs bleeding events: 1.46 (0.98-2.19) and 0.92 (0.52-1.62) (PLATO major); 1.26 (0.80-1.96) and 1.19 (0.58-2.24) (TIMI major), 0.72 (0.47-1.10) and 0.83 (0.38-1.79) (GUSTO severe) (all P>0.05) CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS on dual antiplatelet therapy, spontaneous major bleeding events seem "prognostically equivalent" to spontaneous ischemic complications. This result allows quantitative comparisons between both actual and predicted bleeding and ischemic risks. Our findings help to better define net clinical benefit of antithrombotic treatments and more accurately estimate mortality after ischemic and bleeding events in patients with ACS., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor prevents ischaemic events after coronary stenting, but increases bleeding. Guidelines support weighting bleeding risk before the selection of treatment duration, but no standardised tool exists for this purpose., Methods: A total of 14 963 patients treated with DAPT after coronary stenting-largely consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel and without indication to oral anticoagulation-were pooled at a single-patient level from eight multicentre randomised clinical trials with independent adjudication of events. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we identified predictors of out-of-hospital Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding stratified by trial, and developed a numerical bleeding risk score. The predictive performance of the novel score was assessed in the derivation cohort and validated in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial (n=8595) and BernPCI registry (n=6172). The novel score was assessed within patients randomised to different DAPT durations (n=10 081) to identify the effect on bleeding and ischaemia of a long (12-24 months) or short (3-6 months) treatment in relation to baseline bleeding risk., Findings: The PRECISE-DAPT score (age, creatinine clearance, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, and previous spontaneous bleeding) showed a c-index for out-of-hospital TIMI major or minor bleeding of 0·73 (95% CI 0·61-0·85) in the derivation cohort, and 0·70 (0·65-0·74) in the PLATO trial validation cohort and 0·66 (0·61-0·71) in the BernPCI registry validation cohort. A longer DAPT duration significantly increased bleeding in patients at high risk (score ≥25), but not in those with lower risk profiles (p interaction =0·007), and exerted a significant ischaemic benefit only in this latter group., Interpretation: The PRECISE-DAPT score is a simple five-item risk score, which provides a standardised tool for the prediction of out-of-hospital bleeding during DAPT. In the context of a comprehensive clinical evaluation process, this tool can support clinical decision making for treatment duration., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Scarce and conflicting evidence exists on whether clopidogrel is effective and whether dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) is safe in patients with acute coronary syndrome and chronic kidney disease (CKD). To study this, we performed an observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study of 36,001 patients of the SWEDEHEART registry. The exposure was DAPT prolonged after 3 months versus DAPT stopped at 3 months in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome and known serum creatinine. DAPT duration with clopidogrel and aspirin was assessed by dispensed tablets. CKD stages were classified according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Study outcomes were 1) the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke; 2) bleeding; or 3) the aggregate of these two outcomes within day 111 and 365 from discharge. A longer DAPT duration, as compared with 3-month DAPT, was associated with lower hazard ratios for outcome one in each CKD stratum (eGFR over 60, adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.76 [0.67-0.85]; eGFR 60 and less, 0.84 [0.73-0.96], of which eGFR between 45 and 60, 0.85 [0.70-1.05], eGFR between 30 and 45, 0.78 [0.62-0.97]; eGFR 30 and less ml/min/1.73 m 2 , 0.93 [0.70-1.24]. Bleeding (outcome 2) was in general more common in the longer DAPT group of each aforementioned CKD stratum. Aggregated outcome analysis (outcome 3) similarly favored longer DAPT in each stratum. There was no interaction between DAPT duration and CKD strata for any of the study outcomes. Thus, a prolonged as compared with three-month DAPT was similarly associated with a lower risk of death, stroke, or reinfarction regardless of underlying CKD., (Copyright © 2016 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aspirin was established more than a quarter century ago as an evidence-based therapy to reduce recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease based on limited data by contemporary standards. Indeed it is unclear how regulatory agencies would define the optimal dose or duration of aspirin therapy if assessed in the current era. Subsequent clinical investigation has focused on the addition of antithrombotic agents on top of baseline aspirin therapy in the acute and chronic setting to reduce patient's risk of further ischemic events, at the cost of increased bleeding complications. The current armamentarium of potent and predictable antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents has ushered in a new era where clinicians and scientists are contemplating withdrawal of previously established agents to minimize bleeding risk while sustaining efficacy; indeed, subtraction may lead to the next advance in the treatment of acute and chronic ischemic vascular disease., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ticagrelor reduced cardiovascular events compared with clopidogrel in PLATO without increasing overall major bleeding. We evaluated whether the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) impacts the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel., Methods: PLATO randomized 18,624 subjects with acute coronary syndrome to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding. The use of GPI was at the physician's discretion and open-label. We evaluated outcomes at 30 days stratified by GPI use in the subgroup of 9,983 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 72 hours., Results: A total of 4,020 (40%) received a GPI. Those receiving a GPI were more likely to be younger, be male, and undergo multivessel PCI. There was no interaction between treatment and GPI use for the primary efficacy and safety end points. Patients treated without GPI had a lower rate of definite stent thrombosis and higher rate of minor/major bleeding with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel (P < .05), whereas there was no such difference with GPI (P interaction < .05)., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing early PCI, the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel were not modified by GPI use according to the primary efficacy and safety end point of the trial, although there were indications of greater benefit on definite stent thrombosis and more major or minor bleeding with ticagrelor in patients without (vs with) GPI treatment., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The effects of ticagrelor in the subpopulation of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were consistent with those observed in the overall Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study. However, this subgroup included patients initially or ultimately treated conservatively. The aim of this study is to compare treatment using ticagrelor with treatment using clopidogrel in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: This post-hoc subgroup analysis compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 4949 PLATO patients with STEMI that were treated with primary PCI within 12 h of admission. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. The safety endpoint consisted of any major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included stent thrombosis. The analysis was not adequately powered to establish significance of any treatment effects., Results: During a median of 286 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.9% of ticagrelor-treated patients versus 8.6% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12, p=0.38). Major bleeding occurred in 6.7% in ticagrelor-treated patients versus 6.8% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, p=0.79). No interactions were observed for the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on the primary efficacy (p=0.40) and primary safety endpoints (p=0.15) as compared with the full PLATO population. Treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89, p=0.013)., Conclusions: In the subset of patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was safe, and efficacy outcomes were consistent with the overall PLATO trial., Trial Registration Number: NCT00391872; Results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Adverse event collection in randomized clinical trials establishes drug safety. Although costly and regulated, it is rarely studied., Methods: Adverse event data from 4 clinical trials (APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, TRILOGY ACS) comprising 48,118 participants with acute coronary syndromes were pooled to compare patterns and determinants of reporting. Events were classified as serious (SAE) or nonserious (AE) from hospital discharge to 1 year; study end points were excluded., Results: In total, 84,901 events were reported. Of those, 12,266 (14.4%) were SAEs and 72,635 (85.6%) were AEs. Of all participants, 7,823 (16.3%) had SAEs, 18,124 (37.7%) had only AEs, and 22,171 (46.1%) had neither. Nonserious adverse events were distributed across system organ classes: general disorders (11%), infection (10%), gastrointestinal (10%), respiratory (9%), cardiovascular (8.4%), and other (35%). Serious adverse events had a higher proportion of cardiovascular causes (14.0%). Event reporting was highest after hospital discharge, decreasing rapidly during the following 3 months. In a Cox proportional hazards model, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.44-1.74), heart failure (1.55, 1.40-1.70), older age, and female sex were independent predictors of more SAEs, whereas enrollment in Eastern Europe (0.63, 0.58-0.69) or Asia (0.84, 0.75-0.94) were independent predictors of fewer SAEs., Conclusions: Half of all participants reported adverse events in the year after acute coronary syndrome; most were AEs and occurred within 3 months. The high volume of events, as well as the variation in SAE reporting by characteristics and enrollment region, indicates that efforts to refine event collection in large trials are warranted., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) is common after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and a marker of increased risk of arrhythmogenic death. However, the prognostic significance of NSVT when evaluated with other contemporary risk markers and at later time points after ACS remains uncertain., Methods and Results: In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, continuous ECGs were performed during the first 7 days after ACS (n=2866) and repeated for another 7 days at day 30 (n=1991). Median follow-up was 1 year. There was a time-varying interaction between NSVT and cardiovascular death such that NSVT was significantly associated with increased risk within the first 30 days after randomization (22/999 [2.2%] versus 16/1825 [0.9%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-5.79; P=0.004) but not after 30 days (28/929 [3.0%] versus 42/1734 [2.4%]; P=0.71). Detection of NSVT during the convalescent phase (n=428/1991; 21.5%) was also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, and was most marked within the first 2 months after detection (1.9% versus 0.3%; adjusted hazard ratio, 5.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-28.20; P=0.01), and then decreasing over time such that the relationship was no longer significant by ≈5 months after ACS., Conclusions: NSVT occurred frequently during the acute and convalescent phases of ACS. The risk of cardiovascular death associated with NSVT was the greatest during the first 30 days after presentation; however, patients with NSVT detected during the convalescent phase were also at a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death that persisted for an additional several months after the index event., Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experiencing acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are at high risk for clinical events. In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the primary endpoint of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke after ACS, but increased the incidence of dyspnea, which may lead clinicians to withhold ticagrelor from COPD patients., Methods and Results: In 18 624 patients with ACS randomized to treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, history of COPD was recorded in 1085 (5.8%). At 1 year, the primary endpoint occurred in 17.7% of patients with COPD versus 10.4% in those without COPD (P<0.001). The 1-year event rate for the primary endpoint in COPD patients treated with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel was 14.8% versus 20.6% (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.97), for death from any cause 8.4% versus 12.4% (HR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.04), and for PLATO-defined major bleeding rates at 1 year 14.6% versus 16.6% (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.17). Dyspnea occurred more frequently with ticagrelor (26.1% vs. 16.3%; HR=1.71; 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.30). There was no differential increase in the relative risk of dyspnea compared to non-COPD patients (HR=1.85). No COPD status-by-treatment interactions were found, showing consistency with the main trial results., Conclusions: In this post-hoc analysis, COPD patients experienced high rates of ischemic events. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced and substantially decreased the absolute risk of ischemic events (5.8%) in COPD patients, without increasing overall major bleeding events. The benefit-risk profile supports the use of ticagrelor in patients with ACS and concomitant COPD., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872., (© 2015 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: Bleeding limits anticoagulant treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Objectives: We investigated whether background concomitant antiplatelet therapy influences the effects of apixaban after ACS., Methods: This study examined high-risk ACS patients who were treated with aspirin or aspirin plus clopidogrel and who were randomized to apixaban 5 mg twice daily or placebo. In a post-hoc analysis, we assessed whether the effect of apixaban on efficacy and safety outcomes varied by the concomitant antiplatelet regimen by using simple Cox modeling and marginal structural models with propensity scores and antiplatelet therapy as a time-dependent covariate., Results: At baseline, of 7,364 patients, 16.3% (n = 1,202) were on aspirin alone, and 79.0% (n = 5,814) were on aspirin plus clopidogrel. A total of 19.2% (n = 1,415) switched antiplatelet therapy during follow-up. No differential effect of apixaban versus placebo was observed for the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke in patients taking aspirin (12.21 per 100 patient-years vs. 13.21 per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 1.32) or aspirin plus clopidogrel (13.22 vs. 14.24; adjusted HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.14; p(interaction)= 0.84). Compared with placebo, apixaban increased Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major bleeding in patients taking aspirin (1.48 vs. 0.25; adjusted HR: 6.62; 95% CI: 0.75 to 51.73) and in patients taking aspirin plus clopidogrel (2.58 vs. 1.02; adjusted HR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.34 to 4.45; p(interaction)= 0.41). Similar results were obtained with marginal structural models and in patients treated with and without percutaneous coronary intervention., Conclusions: Post-ACS treatment with apixaban versus placebo showed no efficacy, but it increased bleeding regardless of concomitant therapy with aspirin alone or aspirin plus clopidogrel. (Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2 [APPRAISE-2]; NCT00831441)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the PLATO trial, ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing cardiovascular events among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at the expense of increased nonfatal bleeding. Because Asian patients, when compared with non-Asian patients, are believed to be more susceptible to bleeding, we evaluated the effects of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in Asian (n=1,106) and non-Asian (n=17,515) patients with acute coronary syndrome enrolled in the PLATO study., Methods and Results: Interaction between Asian/non-Asian and primary efficacy end point (a composite of vascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and net clinical benefit (composite of primary efficacy end point and coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery or non-CABG-related major bleeding) were evaluated with a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were different between Asians and non-Asians. The overall cardiovascular event rates were higher in Asians, but bleeding rates were similar. Despite these observed differences, the effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel were not significantly different between Asians and non-Asians with respect to the primary efficacy outcome (hazard ratio for Asians vs non-Asians, 0.84 [95% CI 0.61-1.17] vs 0.85 [95% CI 0.77-0.93], P=.974), net clinical benefit (0.85 [95% CI 0.65-1.11] vs 0.93 [95% CI 0.86-0.99], P=.521), or individual efficacy end points. There was no significant interaction for bleeding (PLATO major bleeding, 1.02 [95% CI 0.70-1.49] vs 1.04 [95% CI 0.95-1.14], P=.938) and other related adverse events with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel between Asians and non-Asians., Conclusions: We observed consistency of effects in Asian patients receiving ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the PLATO study. The relatively modest number of Asian patients in this analysis supports further investigation of larger cohorts to confirm our observations., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To determine the effect of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Methods and Results: PLATO (n = 18,624) was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial in ACS, that showed a 16% reduction in cardiovascular death (CV-death), myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel, without significant increase in overall major bleeding. We performed a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in PLATO according to reported PAD status at baseline. At one year, CV death, MI or stroke occurred in 19.3% of patients with PAD (n = 1144) compared to 10.2% in patients without PAD (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier one year event rate for the primary endpoint of CV death, MI or stroke in PAD patients treated with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel, was 18% vs 20.6% (HR: 0.85 95% CI 0.64-1.11; for PAD status by treatment interaction, p = 0.99) and for death from any cause 8.7% vs 11.9%, (HR: 0.74 95% CI 0.50-1.08; interaction p = 0.73). PLATO-defined major bleeding event rates at one year were 14.8% for ticagrelor compared to 17.9% for clopidogrel, (HR: 0.81 95% CI 0.59-1.10; interaction p = 0.09)., Conclusion: PAD patients have a high rate of ischaemic and bleeding events post ACS. The reduction of CV death, MI or stroke with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in PAD patients was consistent with the overall trial result although it did not reach statistical significance. Overall major bleeding was similar between the therapies., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Introduction: Patients treated with clopidogrel who have higher body size exhibit greater platelet reactivity than patients with lower body size. In a retrospective analysis of the FEATHER trial, we examined the relationship between platelet response to thienopyridines clopidogrel 75 mg (Clop-75), prasugrel 5mg (Pras-5), and prasugrel 10mg (Pras-10) using 3 body size indices: body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), and body surface area (BSA). Relationships were assessed as continuous variables and as 4 incremental body size groups., Materials and Methods: Aspirin-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease (N=72) and a BW range of 45-134 kg received Clop-75, Pras-5, and Pras-10 in a 3-period, blinded, cross-over study. Platelet assays included maximum platelet aggregation (MPA) to 20μM ADP by light transmission aggregometry, VerifyNow-P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), and vasodilator-associated stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation platelet reactivity index (PRI). Exposure to active metabolites (AMs) was also assessed., Results: Body size was a determinant of AM exposure and residual platelet reactivity regardless of type and dose of thienopyridine. BW and BSA demonstrated marginally stronger correlations with platelet reactivity; VASP-PRI demonstrated a stronger correlation with the body size than the other tests. Correlation coefficients ranged from a high of 0.64 (BW vs. PRI on Pras-5) to a low of 0.34 (BMI vs. MPA on Pras-10), but all were statistically significant (p<0.01)., Conclusions: Using a comprehensive selection of body size indices, AM exposures, platelet function tests, and thienopyridine doses, we demonstrated a consistent inverse relationship between body size and response to clopidogrel and prasugrel., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The optimal platelet inhibition strategy for ACS patients managed without revascularization is unknown. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in the non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) subgroup of the PLATO trial, in the total cohort, and in the subgroups managed with and without revascularization within 10 days of randomization., Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke. Among 18 624 PLATO patients, 11 080 (59%) were categorized as NSTE-ACS at randomization. During the initial 10 days, 74% had angiography, 46% PCI, and 5% CABG. In NSTE-ACS patients, the primary endpoint was reduced with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel [10.0 vs. 12.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.74-0.93], as was myocardial infarction (6.6 vs. 7.7%; HR 0.86; 95% CI = 0.74-0.99), cardiovascular death (3.7 vs. 4.9%; HR 0.77; 95% CI = 0.64-0.93), and all-cause death (4.3 vs. 5.8%; HR 0.76; 95% CI = 0.64-0.90). Major bleeding rate was similar between treatment groups (13.4 vs. 12.6%; HR 1.07; 95% CI = 0.95-1.19), but ticagrelor was associated with an increase in non-CABG major bleeding (4.8 vs. 3.8%; HR 1.28; 95% CI = 1.05-1.56). Within the first 10 days, 5366 (48.4%) patients were managed without revascularization. Regardless of revascularization or not, ticagrelor consistently reduced the primary outcome (HR 0.86 vs. 0.85, interaction P = 0.93), and all-cause death (HR 0.75 vs. 0.73, interaction P = 0.89) with no significant increase in overall major bleeding., Conclusion: In patients with NSTE-ACS, benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in reducing ischaemic events and total mortality was consistent with the overall PLATO trial, independent of actually performed revascularization during the initial 10 days., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Extensive coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with higher risk. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we examined the effects of randomized treatment on outcome events and safety in relation to the extent of CAD., Methods: Patients were classified according to presence of extensive CAD (defined as 3-vessel disease, left main disease, or prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Among 15,388 study patients for whom the extent of CAD was known, 4,646 (30%) had extensive CAD. Patients with extensive CAD had more high-risk characteristics and experienced more clinical events during follow-up. They were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (58% vs 79%, P < .001) but more likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (16% vs 2%, P < .001). Ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with extensive CAD (14.9% vs 17.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.85 [0.73-0.98]) similar to its reduction in those without extensive CAD (6.8% vs 8.0%, HR 0.85 [0.74-0.98], Pinteraction = .99). Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel among patients with (25.7% vs 25.5%, HR 1.02 [0.90-1.15]) and without (7.3% vs 6.4%, HR 1.14 [0.98-1.33], Pinteraction = .24) extensive CAD., Conclusions: Patients with extensive CAD have higher rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and bleeding. Ticagrelor reduced ischemic events to a similar extent both in patients with and without extensive CAD, with bleeding rates similar to clopidogrel., (Published by Mosby, Inc.)