Search

Background: We evaluated the association of pulse pressure (PP) and different antiplatelet regimes with clinical and safety outcomes in an all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population. Methods: In this analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS (n = 15,936) we compared the experimental therapy of 23 months of ticagrelor after 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus standard DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy in subjects who underwent PCI and were divided into 2 groups according to the median PP (60 mm Hg). The primary end point (all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction) and the composite end points: patient-oriented composite end points (POCE), Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5, and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were evaluated. Results: At 2 years, subjects in the high-PP group (n = 7971) had similar rates of the primary end point (4.3% vs 3.9%; P = 0.058), POCE (14.9% vs 12.7%; P = 0.051), and BARC 3 or 5 (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = 0.355) and higher rates of NACE (16.4% vs 13.7%; P = 0.037) compared with the low-PP group (n = 7965). Among patients with PP < 60 mm Hg, the primary end point (3.4% vs 4.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.96), POCE (11.8% vs 13.5%, aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.98), NACE (12.8% vs 14.7%, aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96), and BARC 3 or 5 (1.4% vs 2.1%, aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT. The only significant interaction was for BARC 3 or 5 (P = 0.008). Conclusions: After contemporary PCI, subjects with high PP levels experienced high rates of NACE at 2 years. In those with low PP, ticagrelor monotherapy led to a lower risk of bleeding events compared with standard DAPT.

Background: Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. Methods: Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. Results: In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because this, Contexte : Il a et e d emontr e que l ’accès par l’artère radiale reduit la mortalite et les h emorragies, en particulier chez les patients presentant un syndrome coronarien aigu. Malgr e cela, les cardiologues interventionnels qui ont acquis de l’experience en matière d ’accès par l’artère femorale pr efèrent encore utiliser cette voie lorsqu ’ils doivent pratiquer une intervention coronarienne percutanee. On connaît mal l’interêt de chacune de ces techniques d ’accès vasculaire au regard du risque d’hemorragie. Methodologie : Les patients de l’essai GLOBAL LEADERS ont et e repartis en deux groupes, selon qu ’ils presentaient un risque d’hemorragie faible ou elev e d ’après le score PRECISE-DAPT median, puis les resultats cliniques ont et e compar es à 30 jours. Resultats : Dans l’ensemble de la population, aucune difference sta- tistiquement significative n’a et e observ ee entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant au critère d ’evaluation principal, compos e de la mortalite toutes causes confondues et d ’un nouvel infarctus du myocarde (IM) avec onde Q (rapport des risques instantanes [RRI] de 0,70; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 0,42-1,15). L’accès radial a et e associe à un taux signi ficativement plus faible de survenue du critère secondaire d’evaluation de l ’innocuite, c ’est-à-dire une hemorragie de type 3 ou 5 selon la classification du BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) (RRI de 0,55; IC à 95 % : 0,36-0,84). Lorsqu’on compare les sujets en fonction du risque d’hemorragie, les critères d’evaluation de l ’innocuite principal (RRI de 0,47; IC à 95 % : 0,26- 0,85; p ¼ 0,012; pinteraction ¼ 0,019) et secondaire (RRI de 0,57; IC à 95 % : 0,35-0,95; p ¼ 0,030; pinteraction ¼ 0,631) sont favorables à l’accès radial au sein de la population presentant un risque d ’hemor- ragie elev e. Dans la population pr esentant un risque d ’hemorragie faible, les differences entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant aux critères d’evaluation de l ’inn