Search

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: The association of aspirin loading with the risk of coronary no-reflow (CNR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not been investigated. We assessed the association of aspirin loading before PCI with CNR in patients with AMI., Materials and Methods: This study included 3100 patients with AMI undergoing PCI. Of them, 2812 patients received aspirin loading (a single oral [or chewed] or intravenous dose of 150-300 mg) and 288 patients did not receive aspirin loading before PCI. The primary endpoint was CNR, defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction blood flow grade of <3 after the PCI., Results: CNR occurred in 130 patients: 127 patients in the group with aspirin loading and 3 patients in the group without aspirin loading before PCI (4.5% vs. 1.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 4.50, 95% confidence interval, [1.42-14.21], p = 0.005). After adjustment, the association between aspirin loading and CNR was significant (adjusted OR = 4.49 [1.56-12.92]; p < 0.001). There was no aspirin loading-by-P2Y 12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) interaction (p int  = 0.465) or aspirin loading-by-chronic aspirin therapy on admission (p int  = 0.977) interaction with respect to the occurrence of CNR after PCI. Chronic low-dose aspirin therapy on admission was not independently associated with higher risk of CNR after PCI (adjusted OR = 1.06 [0.65-1.72]; p = 0.824)., Conclusion: In patients with AMI undergoing PCI, aspirin loading before the PCI procedure at the guideline-recommended doses was associated with higher odds of developing CNR. However, due to the limited number of events, the findings should be considered as hypothesis generating., (© 2024 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI)., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management., Methods: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5., Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month., Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Neumann has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received grant support and lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Pfizer, Biotronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer HealthCare, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received grant support from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sibbing has received personal fees from Bayer AG, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ferrer, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received grants and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. 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 his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Liebetrau has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Thermo Fisher; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung, Kerckhoff-Stiftung, and Kühl-Stiftung outside the submitted work. Dr. Liebetrau’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Neovasc. Dr. Hamm has received Advisory Board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Sager has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (STRATO), the Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, the Deutsche Herzstiftung, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Joner has received personal fees from Biotronik, Orbus Neich, Boston Scientific, Edwards, AstraZeneca, and Recor; and has received grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Amgen. Dr. Trenk has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung and PharmCompNet Baden-Wuerttemberg: Kompetenznetzwerk Pharmakologie Baden-Wuerttemberg outside the submitted work. Dr. Trenk’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Doasense, Esperion, Idorsia, and Otsuka. Dr. Schunkert has received personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Servier, Brahms, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Sanofi, Synlab, Pfizer, and Vifor; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Schüpke has received grants from the DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research) and the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital GmbH; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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