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.

The Hulunbuir region, known for its diverse terrain and rich wildlife, is a hotspot for various natural epidemic diseases. Between 2021 and 2023, we collected 885 wild rodent samples from this area, representing three families, seven genera, and eleven species. Metagenomic analysis identified three complete nucleic acid sequences from the S, M, and L segments of the Hantaviridae family, which were closely related to the Khabarovsk virus. The nucleotide coding sequences for S, M, and L (1392 nt, 3465 nt, and 6491 nt, respectively) exhibited similarities of 82.34%, 81.68%, and 81.94% to known sequences, respectively, while protein-level analysis indicated higher similarities of 94.92%, 94.41%, and 95.87%, respectively. Phylogenetic analysis placed these sequences within the same clade as the Khabarovsk, Puumala, Muju, Hokkaido, Topografov, and Tatenalense viruses, all of which are known to cause febrile diseases in humans. Immunofluorescence detection of nucleic acid-positive rodent kidney samples using sera from patients with hemorrhagic fever and renal syndrome confirmed the presence of viral particles. Based on these findings, we propose that this virus represents a new member of the Hantaviridae family, tentatively named the Amugulang virus, after its primary distribution area.

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 performance of modified balloons (namely cutting or scoring balloons) to prepare severely calcified lesions in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We investigated the clinical and imaging outcomes of patients undergoing PCI assigned to modified balloon therapy to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions before stent implantation., Methods: In this meta-analysis, we aggregated the study-level data from trials enrolling invasively treated patients who were randomly assigned to modified balloon or control therapy to prepare severely calcified lesions before stenting. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome, coronary perforation and final minimal stent area (MSA) as measured by intracoronary imaging., Results: A total of 648 participants in six trials were allocated to modified balloon therapy (n = 335) or control therapy (semi-compliant, non-compliant, or super high-pressure balloon, n = 313). The median follow-up was 11 months. Overall, MACE occurred in 8.96% of patients assigned to a modified balloon and 12.78% of patients assigned to control therapy [risk ratio = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.39; P = 0.24]. There was a significant treatment effect-by-modified balloon type interaction for the outcome MACE in patients assigned to cutting balloon compared with control therapy [RR = 0.40 (0.28-0.56), P for interaction (P int ) < 0.001]. Patients treated with a modified balloon compared with control therapy showed neither a significant difference for the other clinical outcomes nor for final MSA [standardized mean difference = 0.67 (- 0.71, 2.06); P = 0.26]., Conclusions: In patients treated with PCI for severely calcific coronary artery disease a strategy of lesion preparation with a modified balloon before stenting does not improve clinical or imaging outcomes compared with control therapy. The different performance of cutting and scoring balloons warrants further investigation., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Aims:  Glycoprotein VI (GPVI) is the major platelet-specific collagen receptor. GPVI shedding with generation of soluble GPVI (sGPVI) is an endogenous feedback mechanism preventing platelet overstimulation. sGPVI has not been investigated in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially regarding its potential value as a predictor of ischemic and bleeding risk., Methods:  Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were available in 318 patients with CCS undergoing PCI. Platelet function was assessed by measuring both adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Co-primary endpoints were a composite of death or myocardial injury at 48 hours after PCI, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 1 to 5 bleeding at 30 days., Results:  There was no significant correlation between sGPVI and platelet function at baseline or at 48 hours after PCI and loading with antiplatelet drugs. Baseline plasma sGPVI levels were not associated with the ischemic risk: the incidence of the ischemic endpoint was 25.0% in the lower, 22.9% in the middle, and 26.7% in the upper sGPVI tertile ( p  = 0.82). There was a significant nonlinear relationship between sGPVI and the risk of bleeding: the incidence of the bleeding endpoint was 11.8% in the lower, 12.6% in the middle, and 26.4% in the upper sGPVI tertile ( p  = 0.006)., Conclusion:  In patients with CCS undergoing PCI, plasma levels of sGPVI did not correlate with ADP- or collagen-induced platelet aggregation. Patients with higher baseline levels of sGPVI may carry an increased risk of bleeding at 30 days after PCI but no excess risk of ischemic events., Competing Interests: R.H.-R. reported grants from German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and advanceCOR GmbH during the conduct of the study. I.B. reported personal fees from Sysmex Europe GmbH outside the submitted work. S.S. reported grants from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (Else Kröner-Memorial grant) during the conduct of the study and DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research) for the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Lesion Platelet Adhesion as Selective Target of Endovenous Revacept in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention trial and personal fees from Bayer Vital GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, and Biopas Laboratories outside the submitted work. S.H. has received research grants and honoraria from Roche Diagnostics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck KGaA, Sysmex Inostics, and Volition SPRL outside the submitted work. M.G. is cofounder of advanceCor, the manufacturer of Revacept. H.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Pfizer and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, MSD Sharp & Dohme, not related to the current work. G.M. is the founder of advanceCOR GmbH, Martinsried, Germany. K.A. is employee of advanceCOR GmbH, Martinsried, Germany., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio (De Ritis ratio), obtained from AST and ALT activities in the healthy range, has not been studied in association with mortality., Methods: This study included 3392 patients with stable coronary heart disease and aminotransferase activity in the reference range. Patients are categorized into two groups: a group with AST and ALT activity in the healthy range ( n = 1697), and a group with AST and/or ALT activity outside the healthy range but in the reference range ( n = 1695). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at three years., Results: The De Ritis ratio (median 5th-95th percentile] was 0.94 [0.61-1.41] in patients with AST and ALT in the healthy range and 0.93 [0.45-1.96] in patients with AST and/or ALT outside the healthy range ( p = 0.700). At three years, there were 86 deaths in patients with AST and ALT in the healthy range: 27 deaths (3.9%) in patients with a De Ritis ratio ≤median, and 59 deaths (8.2%) in patients with the De Ritis ratio >median (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.42; p = 0.159); in patients with AST and/or ALT outside the healthy range, there were 148 deaths: 49 deaths (6.6%) in patients with a De Ritis ratio ≤median, and 99 deaths (14.1%) in patients with De Ritis ratio >median (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.09-1.48], p = 0.002), with both HRs calculated per unit higher values of the De Ritis ratio., Conclusions: The De Ritis ratio obtained from AST and ALT activity in the healthy range was not independently associated with higher risk of mortality. The De Ritis ratio obtained from aminotransferase activity outside the healthy range (but still in the reference range) was independently associated with the risk of mortality.

Aims: The effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy on total (including both first and recurrent) ischaemic and bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the treatment effect of a prasugrel vs. a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy when both first and recurrent non-fatal ischaemic and bleeding events are taken into account., Methods and Results: This is a post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 randomized control trial, including all 4018 patients in the trial. The main clinical endpoints of interest included ischaemic events [myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke] and bleeding events [Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding]. An additional endpoint of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. The effect of the prasugrel vs. ticagrelor based strategies on these endpoints was evaluated on both time-to-first event and total events analyses. Patients in the prasugrel group had a lower risk of MI in comparison to the ticagrelor group on both time-to-first event [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.85] and total events [HR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86)] analysis. The risk of BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding was comparable between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups on both time-to-first event [HR = 0.96 (0.75-1.25)] and total events [HR = 0.99 (0.76-1.31)] analysis., Conclusion: A prasugrel based strategy was associated with a reduction in total MI events in comparison to a ticagrelor based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing invasive assessment. Total BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding events were comparable between the two groups. Given the importance of this topic, future studies to confirm these findings would be welcome. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01944800., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The treatment of drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is challenging as it has a high risk of recurrence., Aims: The aim of this analysis was to develop and validate a model to predict the risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for recurrent DES-ISR., Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis was performed including consecutive patients treated with PCI for DES-ISR at two centres in Germany. Included patients were randomly divided into training and validation cohorts. Two regression analyses identified factors associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR up to 1 year. The discriminative ability of the resultant model was then compared to a benchmark ISR classification model using bootstrap resampling. A classification and regression tree analysis and a numerical scoring system (the ISAR score) were used to predict the risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR based on the identified predictors., Results: We included 1,986 patients in the current analysis, divided randomly into training (1,471 patients, 1,778 lesions) and validation (515 patients, 614 lesions) cohorts. Four factor variables (a non-focal ISR pattern, a time interval to ISR of <6 months, ISR of the left circumflex artery and ISR in a calcified vessel) were associated with repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. On bootstrap resampling analysis, the C-statistic for the model including these four variables was 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.63), whereas the C-statistic for the benchmark ISR classification model was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52-0.57), a difference that was statistically significant (delta C-statistic 0.062; 95% CI: 0.035-0.094; p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR was over three times higher in DES-ISR lesions with an ISAR score of ≥3 in comparison to lesions with an ISAR score of 0., Conclusions: This study developed and validated a risk prediction model for repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR at 1-year follow-up. This model served to generate the ISAR score, a standardised tool that can be used to predict the 1-year risk of repeat PCI for recurrent DES-ISR.

Background:  The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined., Methods:  This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months., Results:  A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 10 9 /L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 10 9 /L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 10 9 /L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p  = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p  = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p  = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p  = 0.799; p for interaction [ p int ] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p  = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p  = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p  = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p  = 0.138, p int  = 0.102)., Conclusions:  In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count., Competing Interests: D.J.A. reports consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. H.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, MSD SHARP&DOHME, Novartis, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, and MSD SHARP&DOHME. S.K. reports consulting and lecture fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Translumina. T.K. is named inventor on a patent application for prevention of restenosis after angioplasty and stent implantation outside the submitted work and received lecture fees from Bayer AG, Pharmaceuticals; M.J. reports speaker fees from Biotronik, personal fees from OrbusNeich, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Edwards, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Recor, grants from Amgen, not related to the current work., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours., Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (P int  = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI ( P int =0.37). With regard to the secondary safety end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.56-2.91) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82-1.55) in patients without prior MI ( P int =0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization., Results: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P <0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P <0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary ( P for interaction=0.12) or secondary ( P for interaction=0.80) end points., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Aims: To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10-2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3-5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54)., Conclusion: In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Introduction and Objectives: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) according to body mass index (BMI) remain unstudied. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in patients with ACS according to BMI., Methods: Patients (n=3987) were grouped into 3 categories: normal weight (BMI <25kg/m 2 ; n=1084), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 to <30kg/m 2 ; n=1890), and obesity (BMI ≥ 30kg/m 2 ; n=1013). The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1 year incidence of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary safety endpoint was the 1 year incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 63 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 39 patients assigned to prasugrel in the normal weight group (11.7% vs 7.5%; HR, 1.62; 95%CI, 1.09-2.42; P=.018), 78 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 58 patients assigned to prasugrel in the overweight group (8.3% vs 6.2%; HR, 1.36; 95%CI, 0.97-1.91; P=.076), and 43 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 37 patients assigned to prasugrel in the obesity group (8.6% vs 7.3%; HR, 1.18; 95%CI, 0.76-1.84; P=.451). The 1-year incidence of bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with normal weight (6.5% vs 6.6%; P=.990), overweight (5.6% vs 5.0%; P=.566) or obesity (4.4% vs 2.8%; P=.219). There was no significant treatment arm-by-BMI interaction regarding the primary endpoint (P int =.578) or secondary endpoint (P int =.596)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS, BMI did not significantly impact the treatment effect of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy or safety., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (Copyright © 2021 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

The optimal antiplatelet therapy of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unknown. This study included 2,364 patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing predominantly percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. The primary end point was 1-year mortality. Overall, there were 85 deaths (3.6%): 6 deaths (17.1%) in patients with eGFR <30, 31 deaths (6.9%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 34 deaths (3.0%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 14 deaths (2.0%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.31; p = 0.033 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m 2 decrement in the eGFR. Bleeding occurred in 129 patients (5.5%): 7 bleeds (20.2%) in patients with eGFR <30, 36 bleeds (8.0%) in patients with eGFR 30 to <60, 64 bleeds (5.6%) in patients with eGFR 60 to <90, and 22 bleeds (3.1%) in patients with eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ; adjusted HR=1.11 (1.01 to 1.23); p = 0.045 for 10 ml/min/1.73 m 2 decrement in the eGFR. One-year mortality and bleeding did not differ significantly between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function. In conclusion, in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents and third-generation antiplatelet drugs, impaired renal function was independently associated with higher risk of 1-year mortality and bleeding. The ischemic and bleeding risks appear to differ little between ticagrelor and prasugrel in all categories of impaired renal function., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The association between alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) remains poorly investigated., Methods: The study included 1426 patients with DM and IHD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided in groups according to tertiles of ALP activity: a group with ALP activity in 1st tertile (ALP activity: 20.8-65.0 U/L; n = 478), a group with ALP activity in 2nd tertile (ALP activity: 65.1-87.0 U/L; n = 473) and a group with ALP activity in 3rd tertile (ALP activity: 87.1-1520 U/L; n = 475). The primary endpoint was 3-year all-cause mortality., Results: At 3 years, all-cause deaths occurred in 182 patients: 50 deaths (12.4%) in patients of 1st tertile, 47 deaths (11.7%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 85 deaths (20.8%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.42, P = 0.031); cardiac deaths occurred in 110 patients: 28 deaths (7.0%) in patients of 1st tertile, 30 deaths (7.6%) in patients of 2nd tertile and 52 deaths (12.7%) in patients of 3rd tertile of ALP activity (adjusted HR = 1.27 [1.04-1.56], P = 0.021, with both risk estimates calculated for unit increment in the log scale of ALP activity). The C-statistic of the multivariable model with baseline data without and with ALP was 0.787 [0.750-0.818] and 0.804 [0.757-0.851], (P = 0.575) for all-cause mortality and 0.832 [0.798-0.864] and 0.876 [0.833-0.918], (P = 0.115) for cardiac mortality., Conclusions: In patients with DM and IHD, elevated ALP activity was associated with increased risk of 3-year mortality., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is an ongoing debate and novel data has emerged. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess outcomes of short vs. control DAPT duration. In addition, the role of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after DAPT with either aspirin or P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy was analyzed., Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ≤ 3 months with ≥ 6 months DAPT after DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding. In addition, we performed an analysis on studies who continued with either aspirin or P2Y 12 monotherapy after DAPT., Results: 9 RCTs comprising 41,864 patients were included and we analyzed a short DAPT duration of median 1.5 months vs. 12.1 months in the control group. The risk for ST was similar with short vs. control DAPT duration (0.5 vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio 1.17[95% CI 0.89-1.54]; p=0.26). Bleeding was significantly reduced with short vs. control DAPT duration (1.9 vs. 3.0%; 0.65[0.54-0.77]; p＜0.0001).ST was not different between short vs. control DAPT duration in the analysis of the 4 RCTs who continued with aspirin after DAPT and the 5 P2Y 12 RCTs, respectively, and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.861). Bleeding was also reduced with short vs. control DAPT in both the aspirin (1.2 vs. 1.7%; 0.71[0.51-0.99]; p=0.04) and P2Y 12 inhibitor studies (2.1 vs. 3.4%; 0.62[0.47-0.80]; p=0.0003) and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.515)., Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that short DAPT ≤ 3 months followed by SAPT reduces bleeding and is not associated with an increase in ST. The results were consistent within the aspirin and P2Y 12 SAPT studies.

Aims: Aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of increasing neointimal inhomogeneity and neoatherosclerosis as well as of treatment modality of in-stent restenosis (ISR) on the occurrence of periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI)., Methods and Results: Patients with normal or stable/falling increased baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-cTnT) undergoing intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) and subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ISR by means of drug-coated balloon (DCB) or drug-eluting stent (DES) were included. Overall, 128 patients were subdivided into low (n = 64) and high (n = 64) inhomogeneity groups, based on the median of distribution of non-homogeneous quadrants. No significant between-group differences were detected in terms of hs-cTnT changes (28.0 [12.0-65.8] vs. 25.5 [9.8-65.0] ng/L; p = 0.355), or the incidence of major PMI (31.2 vs. 31.2%; p = 1.000). Similarly, no differences were observed between DCB- and DES-treated groups in terms of hs-cTn changes (27.0 [10.0-64.0] vs. 28.0 [11.0-73.0] ng/L; p = 0.795), or the incidence of major PMI (28.9 vs. 35.6%; p = 0.566). Additionally, no significant interaction was present between optical neointimal characteristics and treatment modality in terms of changes in hs-cTnT (P int  = 0.432). No significant differences in PMI occurrence were observed between low and high neoatherosclerosis subgroups., Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI for ISR, there was no association between increasing neointimal inhomogeneity, or increasing expression of neoatherosclerotic changes and occurrence of PMI. PMI occurrence was not influenced by the treatment modality (DCB vs. DES) of ISR lesions, a finding that supports the safety of DCB treatment for ISR., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Whether bleeding and myocardial infarction (MI) improve the performance of risk prediction models for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unknown., Methods: This study included 3377 patients with ACS who underwent PCI in the setting of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Patients with bleeding, MI or those dying at 1 year after PCI were characterized in terms of baseline characteristics, risk estimates and C-statistic of the risk prediction models for these outcomes., Results: Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3-5), MI and mortality occurred in 195 patients (5.8%), 143 patients (4.3%) and 143 patients (4.3%), respectively. After adjustment, bleeding [hazard ratio = 5.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.03-8.53; P < 0.001] and MI [hazard ratio = 5.90; 95% CI, (3.00-11.65); P < 0.001) remained independently associated with the risk for 1-year mortality. The C-statistic (with 95% CI) of the model for bleeding, MI and mortality was, 0.755 (0.722-0.786), 0.752 (0.717-0.789) and 0.868 (0.837-0.896), respectively. The inclusion of bleeding [C-statistic: 0.892 (0.867-0.913); delta C-statistic 0.024 (-0.014 to 0.065); P = 0.200] or MI [C-statistic: 0.878 (0.851-0.903); delta C-statistic 0.011 (-0.030 to 0.053); P = 0.635] in the risk prediction models for mortality alongside baseline demographical and clinical variables did not improve prediction for mortality., Conclusions: In patients with ACS treated with PCI, mortality is the most accurately predicted outcome. Bleeding and MI did not improve risk discrimination for mortality when added in the risk prediction models for mortality suggesting that these outcomes do not provide incremental prognostic information on top of baseline demographical and clinical data., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Sex-specific analyses of direct head-to-head comparisons between newer P2Y 12 inhibitors are limited. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in women and men with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) planned for an invasive strategy., Methods: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 956 women and 3,062 men with ACS randomly assigned to either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was the 12-month incidence of bleeding (type 3-5 according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC])., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 42 women (8.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 39 women (8.3%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.70, P=0.657) and in 142 men (9.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 98 men (6.5%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.47 [1.13-1.90], P=0.004; P for interaction [P int ]=0.275). BARC type 3-5 bleeding occurred in 36 women (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and 34 women (9.7%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.04 [0.65-1.67], P=0.856) and in 59 men in the ticagrelor group (4.4%) and 46 men (3.6%) in the prasugrel group (HR=1.24 [0.85-1.83], P=0.266; P int =0.571)., Conclusions: Although there was no significant interaction between sex and treatment effect of study drugs, the superior efficacy of prasugrel was more evident among men. No difference in bleeding between the two study groups was seen for both women and men.

Background: It remains unknown which equation used to assess the glomerular function is better for risk stratification in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods: This study included 3985 patients with ACS. Glomerular function was assessed using 4 equations: the Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (C-G CrCl ), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease-4 (MDRD-4), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equations. The primary outcome was one-year all-cause mortality., Results: For each 30 ml/min decrement, the adjusted hazard ratio [HR] with 95% confidence interval [CI] for one-year mortality was 1.67 [1.27-2.25] for C-G CrCl , 1.45 [1.16-1.81] for MDRD-4, 1.76 [1.35-2.30] for CKD-EPI and 1.94 [1.44-2.63] for EKFC equation. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for one-year mortality was 0.748 [0.709-0.788] for C-G CrCl , 0.670 [0.621-0.718] for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated by MDRD-4 equation, 0.725 [0.684-0.765] for eGFR calculated by CKD-EPI equation and 0.741 [0.703-0.779] for eGFR calculated by EKFC equation (P = 0.342 for C-G CrCl , vs. EKFC equation and P ≤ 0.009 for all other AUC comparisons)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS, C-G CrCl and EKFC equations showed a similar discriminatory power regarding prediction of one-year mortality. Both equations were better than MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI equations for risk discrimination for mortality., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: It is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding., Results: The ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)., Background: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined., Methods: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year., Results: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding., Conclusions: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by a grant (FKZ 81X1600501) from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München. Dr Angiolillo has received grants and personal fees from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, and CeloNova; has received personal fees from Haemonetics, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, and St. Jude Medical; and has received grants from CSL Behring, Eisai, Gilead, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Hochholzer has received personal fees from Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and The Medicines Company. Dr Kufner has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Translumina. Dr Sager has received grants from the European Research Council, Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, Deutsche Herzstiftung, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr Neumann has received personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer Healthcare, and Boston Scientific; and has received grants from Medtronic and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Schüpke has received the Else Kröner memorial grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung; has received financial support from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo and Biopas Laboratories. Dr Sibbing has received personal fees from Daichi-Sankyo, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Servier. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management., Methods: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months)., Results: There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10-1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49-1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94-2.01]; P = 0.097)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Introduction: Reactive arthritis is an autoimmune condition which emerges as a counteraction towards an infection which has a focus elsewhere in the body. The purpose of this study is isolation of causative agents of reactive arthritis and ascertains the source of infection. The study has been carried out in the Rheumatology Clinic in Prishtina and specialized ambulance O.S. "Vendenisi-AL" in Besiana, whereas isolation of causative agents has been carried out in the National Institute for Public Health (NIPH). The study has prospective, comparative and analytical feature., Results: Out of 100 patients, 66% were males and 34% females. Among males we have noticed domination of post-urethritis and post-streptococcic reactive arthritis, whereas among females dominates reactive arthritis of enteral etiology. The study concludes that: urogenital tract was the source of infection with 66% of cases, nasopharyngeal tract with 19% of cases, and enteral tract with 15% of cases respectively. Predominantly presents bacteria are E. Coli with 21%, Staphylococcus aureus with 20%, Streptococcus B. hem. gr. A with 16% of cases respectively and other species., Conclusion: frequency of arthritis with urogenital etiology was 2:1 in favor of males, with nasopharyngeal etiology 3:1 in favor of males, whereas in arthritis with enteral etiology we have noticed a slight dominance in favor of females.