Search

Abstract Background Although the detrimental effects of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) on prognosis in coronary artery disease is known, there are few data on the efficacy and safety of modern interventional therapies and medications in patients with advanced CKD, because this special patient cohort is often excluded or underrepresented in randomized trials. Methods In the present study all patients admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI) from the region of Bremen/Germany treated between 2006 and 2019 were analyzed. Advanced CKD was defined as glomerular filtration rate

Background Current guidelines recommend the new‐generation P2Y12‐inhibitor ticagrelor for patients with acute ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs). The aim of the present study was to assess efficacy and safety of ticagrelor for elderly patients with STEMI (≥75 years) in an all‐comers STEMI registry. Methods and Results Patients with STEMI, aged ≥75 years, treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and documented in the Bremen STEMI Registry between 2006 and 2017 entered analysis. The primary efficacy outcome, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, was defined as a composite of death, myocardial reinfarction, and stroke. The safety outcome was defined as any significant bleeding event within 1 year. To estimate benefit/risk ratio, net adverse clinical events (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events+bleedings) were calculated. Outcomes were estimated in propensity score–matched cohorts to adjust for possible confounders. Of a total of 7466 patients with STEMI, 1087, aged ≥75 years, were selected, of which 552 (51%) received clopidogrel and 535 (49%) received ticagrelor, with similar age (80.9±4.6 versus 80.9±4.6 years) and sex (51% versus 50% female) distributions between treatment arms. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 32.4% of patients treated with clopidogrel versus 25.5% treated with ticagrelor (P=0.015), with the 1‐year mortality rate at 26.8% versus 21.1% (P=0.035). Because there was no difference in the safety outcome (clopidogrel versus ticagrelor, 4.9% versus 5.1%; not significant), net adverse clinical events were higher for clopidogrel than for ticagrelor: 37.3% versus 30.6% (P=0.028). In a propensity score–matched model, the advantage for ticagrelor on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events remained significant (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49‐0.97; P=0.03), whereas 1‐year‐mortality (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67–1.27; P=0.5) and 1‐year bleeding events (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.4–2.3; P=0.8) did not differ. Conclusions These results from propensity score–matched registry data show that for elderly patients with STEMI, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events without a significant increase in bleeding events within 1 year.

Background: Diabetic patients show higher adverse ischemic event rates and mortality when undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarctions. Therefore, diabetic patients might benefit even more from modern-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). The aim of the present study was to compare adverse ischemic events and mortality rates between bare-metal stents (BMS) and DES in diabetic patients admitted with ST-elevation-myocardial infarction (STEMI) with non-diabetic patients as the control group. Methods: All STEMI patients undergoing emergency PCI and stent implantation documented between 2006 and 2019 in the Bremen STEMI registry entered the analysis. Efficacy was defined as a combination of in-stent thrombosis, myocardial re-infarction or additional target lesion revascularization at one year. Results: Of 8356 patients which entered analysis, 1554 (19%) were diabetics, while 6802 (81%) were not. 879 (57%) of the diabetics received a DES. In a multivariate model, DES implantation in diabetics compared to BMS was associated with lower rates of in-stent thrombosis (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05–0.6), myocardial re-infarctions (OR 0.35, 95%CI, 0.2–0.7, p < 0.01) and of the combined endpoint at 1 year ((ST + MI + TLR): OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.2–0.6, p < 0.01), with a trend towards lower 5-year mortality (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.3–1.0, p = 0.058). When comparing diabetic to non-diabetic patients, an elevation in event rates for diabetics was only detectable in BMS (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.5–0.7, p < 0.01); however, this did not persist when treated with a DES (OR 1.03 95% CI 0.7–1.6, p = 0.9). Conclusions: In STEMI patients with diabetes, the use of DES significantly reduced ischemic event rates and, unlike with BMS, adverse ischemic event rates became similar to non-diabetic patients.