Search

Background: Patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention require a combination of oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. The use of a coronary stent with a thromboresistant and pro-healing coating may allow an abbreviated duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) without an increase in the risk of thromboembolic events., Methods: Patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with the COBRA polyzene F (PzF) stent followed by 14 days of DAPT or a Food and Drug Administration-approved new-generation drug-eluting stent followed by 3 or 6 months of DAPT. The bleeding coprimary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥2 beyond 14 days (or after hospital discharge) until 6 months. The thromboembolic coprimary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke at 6 months. The trial hypothesis was that the COBRA PzF stent strategy would be superior with respect to bleeding events and noninferior with respect to thromboembolic events., Results: A total of 996 patients underwent randomization. The bleeding end point occurred in 37 of 475 patients (7.8%) in the COBRA PzF group and 47 of 482 patients (9.8%) in the control group (difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -5.6 to 1.6]; P =0.14). The thromboembolic end point occurred in 37 of 492 patients (7.5%) in the COBRA PzF group and 24 of 490 patients (4.9%) in the control group (difference, 2.6%; prespecified noninferiority margin 5%, upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI of the difference, 5.2%; P noninferiority =0.07)., Conclusions: In patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment with the COBRA PzF stent plus 14 days of DAPT was not superior with respect to bleeding events and was not noninferior with respect to thromboembolic events at 6 months compared with treatment with standard Food and Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting stent plus 3 to 6 months of DAPT., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02594501., Competing Interests: Dr Byrne reports research or educational funding to the institution of current employment from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, and Translumina. Dr Maeng is supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant number NNF22OC0074083), has received lecture and advisory board fees from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novo Nordisk, has received research grants from Philips, Bayer, and Novo Nordisk, has ongoing research contracts with Novo Nordisk and Philips, and is a minor shareholder in Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr Brunner is a previous employee of CeloNova. Dr Urban reports personal consulting fees from and is a shareholder of MedAlliance, Nyon, Switzerland, outside of the submitted work. Dr Cutlip reports contracted research support paid to institution of current employment from Celonova. Dr Kirtane reports Institutional funding to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CathWorks, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, and Shockwave Medical. In addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for consulting and/or speaking engagements in which Dr Kirtane controlled the content. Personal: Travel Expenses/Meals from Amgen, Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CathWorks, Edwards, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Novartis, Philips, Abiomed, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, Zoll, Shockwave, and Regeneron. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546)., Conclusions: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization., Results: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P =0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P =0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P =0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P =0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P =0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P =0.36)., Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background: The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown., Objective: To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800)., Design: Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial., Setting: 23 centers in Germany and Italy., Patients: 3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management., Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group)., Measurements: The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months., Results: In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2)., Limitation: The study is a subgroup analysis., Conclusion: In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding., Primary Funding Source: German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.