Search

Background Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes ( ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions ( PCI). Aim We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. Methods We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009-2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. Results For the period of 2009-2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non- ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). Conclusion Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before the routine use of coronary stents, potential complications of percutaneous coronary interventions required the presence of backup cardiac surgery on-site. Advances in pharmacotherapy and interventional techniques, particularly in the last decade, have significantly decreased the rates of complications requiring emergency cardiac surgery, from approximately 4% to 6% in the balloon angioplasty era to as low as 0.3% to 0.6% in the contemporary era of routine intracoronary stent implantation. An early invasive approach has been shown to improve outcomes among patients with non- ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), particularly in those at the highest risk, emphasising the importance of early access to revascularisation premises in such patients. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction require immediate and sustained recanalisation of the culprit vessel to obtain rapid reperfusion of the threatened myocardium, in order to reduce infarct size and improve outcomes. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention at hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery improves clinical outcomes and reduces length of stay when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. It also significantly reduces door-to-balloon times when compared with transfer for percutaneous coronary interventions at hospitals with on-site surgery. It has been published that risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions in centres without on-site surgical backup are comparable with those of percutaneous coronary intervention facilities that have cardiac surgery on-site, regardless of whether percutaneous coronary intervention was performed as primary therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or in a non-primary setting. To achieve these results however, an adequate percutaneous coronary intervention programme is required, including proper hospital infrastructure and appropriately trained interventional cardiologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]