Search

Background: Although oral P2Y 12 inhibitors are key in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, the optimal timing of their administration is not well defined., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare downstream and upstream oral P2Y 12 inhibitors administration strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive treatment., Methods: We performed a randomized, adaptive, open-label, multicenter clinical trial. Patients were randomly assigned to receive pre-treatment with ticagrelor before angiography (upstream group) or no pre-treatment (downstream group). Patients in the downstream group undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were further randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary hypothesis was the superiority of the downstream versus the upstream strategy on the combination of efficacy and safety events (net clinical benefit)., Results: We randomized 1,449 patients to downstream or upstream oral P2Y 12 inhibitor administration. A pre-specified stopping rule for futility at interim analysis led the trial to be stopped. The rate of the primary endpoint, a composite of death due to vascular causes; nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3, 4, and 5 bleeding through day 30, did not differ significantly between the downstream and upstream groups (percent absolute risk reduction: -0.46; 95% repeated confidence interval: -2.90 to 1.90). These results were confirmed among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (72% of population) and regardless of the timing of coronary angiography (within or after 24 h from enrollment)., Conclusions: Downstream and upstream oral P2Y 12 inhibitor administration strategies were associated with low incidence of ischemic and bleeding events and minimal numeric difference of event rates between treatment groups. These findings led to premature interruption of the trial and suggest the unlikelihood of enhanced efficacy of 1 strategy over the other. (Downstream Versus Upstream Strategy for the Administration of P2Y 12 Receptor Blockers In Non-ST Elevated Acute Coronary Syndromes With Initial Invasive Indication [DUBIUS]; NCT02618837)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry This work was funded by the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE). Dr. Tarantini has received Speakers Bureau fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Mojoli has received individual payments for participating on the Advisory Boards of The Medicines Company and Abbott Vascular; and has been a speaker at scientific congresses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chiesi Farmaceutici, and Servier; and his institution has received an unconditioned research grant from Chiesi Farmaceutici. Dr. Varbella has received consulting fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Amgen, Sanofi, Piam, Alvi Medica, Teleflex, and Stenty. Dr. Caporale has received an Advisory Board fee from AstraZeneca. Dr. Rigattieri has received a consulting fee from AstraZeneca; and has received a Speakers Bureau fee from Eli Lilly. Dr. Andò has received individual payments as a consultant, for serving on the Advisory Board, or as a speaker at scientific congresses from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Pfizer–Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Biosensors. Dr. Saia has received Speakers Bureau fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Ferlini has received individual payment as a consultant, for serving on the Advisory Board, or as a speaker at scientific congresses from AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Bayer, Biosensors, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria as an individual from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payment as an individual for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; and has received institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI)., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management., Methods: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5., Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month., Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Neumann has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received grant support and lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Pfizer, Biotronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer HealthCare, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received grant support from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sibbing has received personal fees from Bayer AG, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ferrer, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received grants and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Liebetrau has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Thermo Fisher; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung, Kerckhoff-Stiftung, and Kühl-Stiftung outside the submitted work. Dr. Liebetrau’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Neovasc. Dr. Hamm has received Advisory Board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Sager has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (STRATO), the Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, the Deutsche Herzstiftung, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Joner has received personal fees from Biotronik, Orbus Neich, Boston Scientific, Edwards, AstraZeneca, and Recor; and has received grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Amgen. Dr. Trenk has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung and PharmCompNet Baden-Wuerttemberg: Kompetenznetzwerk Pharmakologie Baden-Wuerttemberg outside the submitted work. Dr. Trenk’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Doasense, Esperion, Idorsia, and Otsuka. Dr. Schunkert has received personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Servier, Brahms, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Sanofi, Synlab, Pfizer, and Vifor; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Schüpke has received grants from the DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research) and the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital GmbH; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the morphological features of plaque erosion and calcified nodule in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) by optical coherence tomography (OCT)., Background: Plaque erosion and calcified nodule have not been systematically investigated in vivo., Methods: A total of 126 patients with ACS who had undergone pre-intervention OCT imaging were included. The culprit lesions were classified as plaque rupture (PR), erosion (OCT-erosion), calcified nodule (OCT-CN), or with a new set of diagnostic criteria for OCT., Results: The incidences of PR, OCT-erosion, and OCT-CN were 43.7%, 31.0%, and 7.9%, respectively. Patients with OCT-erosion were the youngest, compared with those with PR and OCT-CN (53.8 ± 13.1 years vs. 60.6 ± 11.5 years, 65.1 ± 5.0 years, p = 0.005). Compared with patients with PR, presentation with non-ST-segment elevation ACS was more common in patients with OCT-erosion (61.5% vs. 29.1%, p = 0.008) and OCT-CN (100% vs. 29.1%, p < 0.001). The OCT-erosion had a lower frequency of lipid plaque (43.6% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), thicker fibrous cap (169.3 ± 99.1 μm vs. 60.4 ± 16.6 μm, p < 0.001), and smaller lipid arc (202.8 ± 73.6° vs. 275.8 ± 60.4°, p < 0.001) than PR. The diameter stenosis was least severe in OCT-erosion, followed by OCT-CN and PR (55.4 ± 14.7% vs. 66.1 ± 13.5% vs. 68.8 ± 12.9%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Optical coherence tomography is a promising modality for identifying OCT-erosion and OCT-CN in vivo. The OCT-erosion is a frequent finding in patients with ACS, especially in those with non-ST-segment elevation ACS and younger patients. The OCT-CN is the least common etiology for ACS and is more common in older patients. (The Massachusetts General Hospital Optical Coherence Tomography Registry; NCT01110538)., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)