Search

Objectives The aim of this study was to compare a delayed and a very early invasive strategy in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) without pre-treatment. Background The optimal delay of the invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS remains debated and has never been investigated in patients not pre-treated with P2Y12–adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists. Methods A prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Altogether, 741 patients presenting with intermediate- or high-risk NSTE-ACS intended for an invasive strategy were included. The modified intention-to-treat analysis was composed of 709 patients after 32 withdrew consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the delayed invasive group (DG) (n = 363) with coronary angiography (CA) performed 12 to 72 h after randomization or the very early invasive group (EG) (n = 346) with CA within 2 h. No pre-treatment with a loading dose of a P2Y12–adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist was allowed before CA. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee. Results Most patients had high-risk NSTE-ACS in both groups (93% in the EG vs. 92.5% in the DG). The median time between randomization and CA was 0 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 0 to 1 h) in the EG group and 18 h (IQR: 11 to 23 h) in the DG. The primary endpoint rate was significantly lower in the EG (4.4% vs. 21.3% in the DG; hazard ratio: 0.20; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.34; p Conclusions Without pre-treatment, a very early invasive strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ischemic events at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with intermediate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate and High-Risk Non ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes; NCT02750579)

International audience; Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related myonecrosis is frequent and can affect the long-term prognosis of patients. To our knowledge, ticagrelor has not been evaluated in elective PCI and could reduce periprocedural ischaemic complications compared with clopidogrel, the currently recommended treatment. The aim of the ALPHEUS study was to examine if ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing high-risk elective PCI.Methods: The ALPHEUS study, a phase 3b, randomised, open-label trial, was done at 49 hospitals in France and Czech Republic. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were eligible for the study if they had an indication for PCI and at least one high-risk characteristic. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter for 30 days) or clopidogrel (300-600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter for 30 days) by use of an interactive web response system, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was a composite of PCI-related type 4 (a or b) myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both of which were evaluated within 48 h of PCI (or at hospital discharge if earlier). The primary analysis was based on all events that occurred in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617290.Findings: Between Jan 9, 2017, and May 28, 2020, 1910 patients were randomly assigned at 49 sites, 956 to the ticagrelor group and 954 to the clopidogrel group. 15 patients were excluded from the ticagrelor group and 12 from the clopidogrel group. At 48 h, the primary outcome was observed in 334 (35%) of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group and 341 (36%) of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·17; p=0·75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between the two groups, but minor bleeding events were more frequently observed with ticagrelor than clopidogrel at 30 days (105 [11%] of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group vs 71 [8%] of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group; OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·12-2·11; p=0·0070).Interpretation: Ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective PCI and did not cause an increase in major bleeding, but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days. These results support the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care for elective PCI.Funding: ACTION Study Group and AstraZeneca.

International audience; Objectives: To evaluate the rate of procedural success and long-term outcomes of the PK Papyrus (PKP) covered stent (CS).Background: CS are essential in the treatment of coronary artery perforation (CAP). They have also been used to treat coronary artery aneurysms. Limited evidence is available on clinical outcomes with the PKP.Methods: This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective, and prospective study. Consecutive patients undergoing intentional PKP implantation in 22 centers in France were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of procedural success. Secondary endpoints included rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent restenosis (ISR), and stent thrombosis (ST).Results: Data from 130 patients were analyzed (mean age 72.5 ± 10.5 years; 71% men). The main indication for PKP was CAP, in 84 patients (65%). Delivery success was achieved in 95% and procedural success in 91%. During the in-hospital stay, 15 patients died (12%) and 7 (5%) presented with ST. Data from 127 patients were available at 19.2 ± 12.8 month follow-up. Thirty-three patients died (26%), 15 (12%) had an MI and 21 (17%) presented with TLR. TLR was due to ISR in 12 patients (9%), 10 had definite ST (8%) and 1 patient for stent under-expansion.Conclusions: The principal indication for PKP was CAP. PKP had high rates of delivery and procedural success. At long-term follow-up, there was a high rate of TLR, mainly due to ISR and ST. These results are consistent with previously reported data in these clinical settings.

International audience; Background: Clopidogrel associated with aspirin is the recommended treatment for patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although severe PCI-related events are rare, evidence suggests that PCI-related myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are frequent complications that can impact the clinical prognosis of the patients. Antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor such as ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural ischemic complications while maintaining a similar safety profile as compared with conventional dual antiplatelet therapy by aspirin and clopidogrel in this setting. Methods: Assessment of Loading with the P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting (ALPHEUS) (NCT02617290) is an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study in patients with stable coronary artery disease who are planned for an elective PCI. In total, 1,900 patients will be randomized before a planned PCI to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or a loading dose of clopidogrel (300 or 600 mg) in addition to aspirin. Patients will then receive a dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary ischemic end point is PCI-related myocardial infarction (myocardial infarction type 4a or 4b) or major myocardial injury within 48 hours (or at hospital discharge if earlier) after elective PCI/stent. Safety will be evaluated by major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) at 48 hours (or discharge if it occurs earlier). Conclusion: ALPHEUS is the first properly sized trial comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel in the setting of elective PCI and is especially designed to show a reduction in periprocedural events, a surrogate end point for mortality.

Background: Stents immediately implanted in thrombus-laden arteries cause embolization, which paradoxically impairs myocardial reperfusion and function. Methods: We conducted a Bayesian open-label randomized trial across 15 centres in France and Canada. Patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and reperfused by thrombectomy or small-size balloon angioplasty were randomly assigned to immediate stenting or to a bridging anti-thrombin therapy and delayed stenting between 18h to 48h after reperfusion. Using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis, we borrowed data from exchangeable twin trials to form a posterior probability of the risk ratio (RR) for the combined occurrence of cardiovascular death, heart failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularisation (TVR) over 9 months in the intent-to-treat populations. Findings: Between April 2014 and September 2017, 305 participants were randomly assigned to delayed (n = 152) or immediate stenting (n = 153). In parallel, four similar RCTs were reported that satisfied exchangeability requirements, leading to 1,873 participants, including 930 assigned to delayed and 943 assigned to immediate stenting. The primary endpoint occurred in 167 participants (18.1%) assigned to delayed stenting compared to 194 participants (20.6%) assigned to immediate stenting (RR, 0.91; 95% credible interval [95%CrI], 0.76 to 1.09; probability of superiority, 89%). Delayed stenting led to a meaningful increase in unplanned target revascularization acutely (RR, 1.54; 95% CrI, 0.98 to 2.41, probability of inferiority, 99%). At long term, delayed stenting reduced the combined occurrence of CV death or heart failure (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67 to 1.02, probability of superiority, 99%). Interpretation: In patients with STEMI, delayed stenting did not reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, heart failure and unplanned TVR compared to the immediate stenting. There is a high probability that delayed stenting substantially reduces cardiovascular death and heart failure in the longer-term. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01542385. Funding Statement: The trial was supported by an operating grant from the peer-reviewed, publically funded Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), through the Industry-Partnered Collaborative Research program (grant #298937), in collaboration with Boston Scientific and AstraZeneca (unrestricted grants support). The industry partners played no role in the conduct and oversight of the study. Declaration of Interests: The investigators disclose the following relationships: E. Marc Jolicoeur: Advisory Board: Institut National d’Excellence en Sante et Services Sociaux du Quebec, Servier, Imbria Pharmaceutical, Carre technology; Board of Directors, Societe de Sciences Vasculaires du Quebec; Data Safety Monitoring Board: XyloCor; Research grants; Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca; The University of Glasgow (employer, C Berry) holds research and/or consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, HeartFlow, Novartis and Siemens Healthcare; Francois Roubille: Advisory Board: Abbott, Air liquide, Research grants; Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca. Consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Air liquide, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Novartis, Novonordisk, Vifor; Geraud Souteyrand: Consultancy agreements; Medtronic, Abbott, and Terumo; Guillaume Cayla: Consultancy agreements; Astra Zeneca, Amgen, Abbot Vascular, BMS, Boston, Biotronik, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi; Nicolas Delarche: Advisory board: Novartis; Samer Mansour: Consultant/Advisory board/Speaker’s Bureau: Abbott vascular, Soundbite, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Medtronic, Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, Gilead and Novartis; Erick Schampaert: Consultant/Advisory board/Speaker’s Bureau: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS-Pfizer Alliance, Medtronic, Philips-Volcano, Servier; Loic Belle: Research Grant: AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Biotronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Terumo Ethics Approval Statement: The protocol complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by IRB at each participating centers. The trial was coordinated by the Montreal Health Innovation Coordinating Centre under the direction of the executive committee, which was responsible for trial conduct, the integrity of the data analysis, and the reporting of results.

Background Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is used to restore blood flow in the infarct-related coronary artery, followed by immediate stenting to prevent reocclusion. Stents implanted in thrombus-laden arteries cause distal embolization, which paradoxically impairs myocardial reperfusion and ventricular function. Whether a strategy of delayed stenting improves outcomes in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain. Methods The Primary Reperfusion Secondary Stenting (PRIMACY) is a Bayesian prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial in which delayed vs immediate stenting in patients with STEMI were compared for prevention of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, heart failure, or unplanned target vessel revascularization at 9 months. All participants were immediately reperfused, but those assigned to the delayed arm underwent stenting after an interval of 24 to 48 hours. This interval was bridged with antithrombin therapy to reduce thrombus burden. In the principal Bayesian hierarchical random effects analysis, data from exchangeable trials will be combined into a study prior and updated with PRIMACY into a posterior probability of efficacy. Results A total of 305 participants were randomized across 15 centres in France and Canada between April 2014 and September 2017. At baseline, the median age of participants was 59 years, 81% were male, and 3% had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. Results from PRIMACY will be updated from the patient-level data of 1568 participants enrolled in the Deferred Stent Trial in STEMI (DEFER; United Kingdom), Minimalist Immediate Mechanical Intervention (MIMI; France), Danish Trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-3 (DANAMI-3; Denmark), and Impact of Immediate Stent Implantation Versus Deferred Stent Implantation on Infarct Size and Microvascular Perfusion in Patients With ST Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction (INNOVATION, South Korea) trials. Conclusions We expect to clarify whether delayed stenting can safely reduce the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular end points compared with immediate stenting in patients with STEMI.

Background: In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment. Methods: We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y 12 test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status. Results: Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74–1.18]; P =0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22–7.59]; P =0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40–1.58]; P =0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96–8.41]; P =0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients. Conclusions: The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

There is an apparent benefit with extension of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy vs a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation, and of Treatment Interruption vs Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC)-Generation assessed whether there is a difference of outcome between first- vs second-generation DES and if there is an interaction with DAPT duration in the ARCTIC-Interruption study. ARCTIC-Interruption randomly allocated 1259 patients 1 year after stent implantation to a strategy of interruption of DAPT (n = 624), in which aspirin antiplatelet treatment only was maintained, or DAPT continuation (n = 635) for 6 to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization. A total of 520 and 722 patients received a first- and a second-generation DES, respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range, 15-18 months) after randomization, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 (6.2%) and 19 (2.6%) patients with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.07, P = 0.004). This was observed irrespective of the strategy of interruption or continuation of DAPT and timing of study recruitment. Major bleeding events occurred in 4 (0.8%) and 3 patients (0.4%) with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-8.02, P = 0.44). Results did not change after multiple adjustments for potential confounding variables. ARCTIC-Generation showed worse clinical outcome with first- vs second-generation DES, a difference that appeared to persist even with prolonged DAPT.

International audience; According to recent literature, pretreatment with a P2Y12 ADP receptor antagonist before coronary angiography appears no longer suitable in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) due to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. Optimal delay of the invasive strategy in this specific context is unknown. We hypothesize that without P2Y12 ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment, a very early invasive strategy may be beneficial. The EARLY trial (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate- and High-Risk Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes?) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, 2-parallel-group study that plans to enroll 740 patients. Patients are eligible if the diagnosis of intermediate- or high-risk NSTE-ACS is made and an invasive strategy intended. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. In the control group, a delayed strategy is adopted, with the coronary angiography taking place between 12 and 72 hours after randomization. In the experimental group, a very early invasive strategy is performed within 2 hours. A loading dose of a P2Y12 ADP receptor antagonist is given at the time of intervention in both groups. Recruitment began in September 2016 (n = 558 patients as of October 2017). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month. The EARLY trial aims to demonstrate the superiority of a very early invasive strategy compared with a delayed strategy in intermediate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS patients managed without P2Y12 ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment.

According to recent literature, pretreatment with a P2Y(12) ADP receptor antagonist before coronary angiography appears no longer suitable in non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE‐ACS) due to an unfavorable risk–benefit ratio. Optimal delay of the invasive strategy in this specific context is unknown. We hypothesize that without P2Y(12) ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment, a very early invasive strategy may be beneficial. The EARLY trial (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate‐ and High‐Risk Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes?) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open‐label, 2‐parallel‐group study that plans to enroll 740 patients. Patients are eligible if the diagnosis of intermediate‐ or high‐risk NSTE‐ACS is made and an invasive strategy intended. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. In the control group, a delayed strategy is adopted, with the coronary angiography taking place between 12 and 72 hours after randomization. In the experimental group, a very early invasive strategy is performed within 2 hours. A loading dose of a P2Y(12) ADP receptor antagonist is given at the time of intervention in both groups. Recruitment began in September 2016 (n = 558 patients as of October 2017). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month. The EARLY trial aims to demonstrate the superiority of a very early invasive strategy compared with a delayed strategy in intermediate‐ and high‐risk NSTE‐ACS patients managed without P2Y(12) ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment.

Aims The European Society of Cardiology guidelines advocate a shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus the standard duration after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The safety of this strategy in terms of thrombotic risk is, however, insufficiently investigated. We will report clinical outcomes associated with a short duration of DAPT (≤ 3 months) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent. Methods and results BIOFLOW III French Satellite is a prospective national registry involving 1000 unselected patients treated with the Orsiro stent, conducted in France between November 2014 and July 2016. Using data from this study, we are conducting a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients treated with a short (≤ 3 months) versus standard (> 6 months) duration of DAPT. Analysis of the study data in patients without long-term oral anticoagulation is ongoing. We will compare the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients discharged after PCI and considered for a short or standard duration of DAPT. The primary endpoint is the incidence of definite, probable and possible stent thrombosis (defined by the Academic Research Consortium) occurring between the end of DAPT and 6 months after stent implantation. Results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion This prospective and observational study will evaluate the prevalence and outcomes associated with a short duration of DAPT in patients undergoing PCI with the Orsiro stent in everyday clinical practice.

Coronary artery perforation is a rare complication of percutaneous coronary intervention associated with a high level of morbidity and mortality. The development of covered stents with better deliverability, such as the PK Papyrus (Biotronik) should facilitate treatment of coronary perforations with

Summary Background Elderly patients are at high risk of ischaemic and bleeding events. Platelet function monitoring offers the possibility to individualise antiplatelet therapy to improve the therapeutic risk–benefit ratio. We aimed to assess the effect of platelet function monitoring with treatment adjustment in elderly patients stented for an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We did this multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled superiority study at 35 centres in France. Patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone coronary stenting for acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1), via a central interactive voice-response system based on a computer-generated permuted-block randomisation schedule with randomly selected block sizes, to receive oral prasugrel 5 mg daily with dose or drug adjustment in case of inadequate response (monitoring group) or oral prasugrel 5 mg daily with no monitoring or treatment adjustment (conventional group). Randomisation was stratified by centre. Platelet function testing was done 14 days after randomisation and repeated 14 days after treatment adjustment in patients in the monitoring group. Study investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation, but allocation was concealed from an independent clinical events committee responsible for endpoint adjudication. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, urgent revascularisation, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding complications (types 2, 3, or 5) at 12 months' follow-up. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01538446. Findings Between March 27, 2012, and May 19, 2015, we randomly assigned 877 patients to the monitoring group (n=442) or the conventional group (n=435). The primary endpoint occurred in 120 (28%) patients in the monitoring group compared with 123 (28%) patients in the conventional group (hazard ratio [HR], 1·003, 95% CI 0·78–1·29; p=0·98). Rates of bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups. Interpretation Platelet function monitoring with treatment adjustment did not improve the clinical outcome of elderly patients treated with coronary stenting for an acute coronary syndrome. Platelet function testing is still being used in many centres and international guidelines still recommend platelet function testing in high-risk situations. Our study does not support this practice or these recommendations. Funding Eli Lilly and Company, Daiichi Sankyo, Stentys, Accriva Diagnostics, Medtronic, and Fondation Coeur et Recherche.

Background Elderly patients are at high-risk of bleedings, particularly in the setting of acute coronary syndrome treated with an invasive strategy. Treatment adjustment by platelet function testing (PFT) failed to improve clinical outcomes in the randomized ANTARCTIC trial. Purpose This prespecified substudy aims at determining the predictive value of PFT on occurrence of bleedings. Methods We analyzed the 877 patients over the age of 75 years included in the ANTARCTIC trial and randomized to a strategy of dose or drug antiplatelet therapy adjustment or a conventional “one size fits all” strategy without PFT. In the monitoring group, patients received prasugrel 5 mg daily after coronary stenting and PFT was done 14 days after randomization and repeated 14 days after treatment adjustment. Occurrence of bleedings was collected up to one year and correlated with PFT. Results Clinically relevant bleedings (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 2, 3 or 5) were frequently observed (20.6%, n = 181 patients) with one third occurring in the first month. Cutaneous and gastro-intestinal bleedings were the two predominant complications. There was no significant difference in the final treatment between patients with or without clinically relevant bleedings (respectively, clopidogrel 75 mg: 19.9% and 19.6%, prasugrel 5 mg: 77.3% and 77.9%, prasugrel 10 mg: 2.6% and 2.8%; P = 0.91) The main predictive factors of major bleedings in multivariate model were age > 85 years [adj.HR(95% CI): 2.48(1.25;4.91); P = 0.0093] and hemoglobin level (per gram of decrease) [adj.HR(95% CI): 1.45(1.18;1.79); P = 0.0004]. The last PFT was an independent predictive factor of clinically relevant bleedings (adj.HR(95% CI): 0.95(0.90;0.99); P = 0.017). Conclusion Clinically relevant bleedings were frequent in elderly patients in the setting of acute coronary syndrome. PFT did not improve clinical outcomes but identified the bleeding risk of these patients when the chronic treatment was installed.

Purpose To evaluate the safety of extended-delay stenting (>7 days between procedures) in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods This ongoing prospective observational study is being conducted in STEMI patients with a high thrombus burden in the infarct-related artery (IRA). Patients are enrolled if the operator decides to try to restore the best TIMI flow with the thinnest tool and defer stent implantation for >7 days under optimal anticoagulation to reduce thrombus burden. The primary endpoint is the composite of reocclusion of the IRA or sudden death between the two procedures, and deterioration of the flow (from the final flow achieved after the first procedure to the initial flow at the second procedure). Results Between January 2014 and January 2015, 127 patients (of 135 we will enroll) were enrolled at 14 centres: 110 were men and the mean age±SD was 57.1±13.0 years. 98 patients underwent a primary PCI as the first procedure and 29 patients underwent PCI after fibrinolysis. The final TIMI flow at the first procedure was 3 in 119 patients, 2 in 7 patients, and 1 in 1 patient and the residual culprit lesion was 61±24%. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in 42 patients. The second procedure was performed between 7 and 26 days after the first. None of the patients died between the two procedures; 1 patient experienced a reocclusion of the IRA In all cases, initial TIMI flow in the IRA (at the start of the second procedure) was the same as or better than the final flow after the first procedure. A stent was implanted in 80 patients, whereas no significant lesion was documented in 47 patients. Final results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions In PCI for acute STEMI, when the thrombus burden is high, stenting delayed by 7-26 days with intensive antithrombotic cover appears safe, with only 1 of 130 patients developing an IRA reocclusion.

Background— Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown. Methods and Results— In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y 12 /aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835–1.461; P =0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively ( P =0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm ( P =0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively ( P =0.10). Conclusions— Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

Background Elderly patients are at high risk for both ischemic and bleeding events. Platelet monitoring offers the opportunity to individualized antiplatelet therapy to optimize the therapeutic risk/benefit ratio. Study design The ANTARCTIC study is designed to demonstrate the superiority of a strategy of platelet function monitoring with dose and drug adjustment in patients initially on prasugrel 5 mg as compared with a more conventional strategy using prasugrel 5 mg without monitoring and without adjustment (Conventional Treatment Arm) to reduce the primary end point evaluated 1 year after stent percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). ANTARCTIC is a multicenter, prospective, open-label study with 2 parallel arms. A total of 852 elderly patients (≥75 years) undergoing stent percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS are to be enrolled. The primary end point is the time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, urgent revascularization, and bleeding complications (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition 2, 3, or 5). Platelet function analyses will be performed 14 days after randomization and repeated 14 days later in patients who require a change in treatment. Conclusion ANTARCTIC is a nationwide, prospective, open-label study testing a strategy of platelet function monitoring with dose and drug adjustment to reduce ischemic and bleeding complications in elderly ACS patients undergoing coronary stenting.

Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy.We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later.In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups.This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.).