Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population.Methods: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279.Findings: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups.Interpretation: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice.Funding: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimum duration of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) after coronary stenting remains uncertain, with an unknown efficacy to safety ratio of extended treatment leading to discrepancies between international guidelines and clinical practice. We assessed whether DAPT continuation beyond 1 year after coronary stenting is beneficial. Methods This analysis was a planned extension of the previously published ARCTIC-Monitoring trial, in which we randomly allocated 2440 patients to a strategy of platelet function testing with antiplatelet treatment adjustment or a conventional strategy after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES). We recruited patients (aged 18 years or older) scheduled for planned DES implantation at 38 centres in France. After 1 year of follow-up, patients without contraindication to interruption of DAPT were eligible for a second randomisation to this second phase of the study (ARCTIC-Interruption). Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by centre), we allocated patients to a strategy of interruption o f DAPT where the thienopyridine was interrupted and single aspirin antiplatelet treatment was maintained (interruption group) or a strategy of DAPT continuation for 6-18 months (continuation group). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00827411. Findings Between Jan 4, 2011, and March 3, 2012, 1259 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment in ARCTIC-Interruption: 624 to the interruption group and 635 to the continuation group. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 15-18), the primary endpoint occurred in 27 (4%) patients in the interruption group and 24 (4%) patients in the continuation group (hazard ratio [HR] 1⋅17 [95% CI 0 ⋅ 68--2⋅03]; p=0⋅58). STEEPLE major bleeding events occurred more often in the continuation group (seven [1%] patients) compared with the interruption group (one [<0-5%] patient; HR 0⋅15 [0⋅02-1⋅20]; p=0 -073). Major or minor bleedings were also more common in the continuation group compared with the interruption group (12 [2%] patients vs three [1%] patients; HR 0⋅26 [0⋅07-0⋅91]; p=0-04). Interpretation Our finding suggests no apparent benefit but instead harm with extension of DAPT beyond 1 year after stenting with DES when no event has occurred within the first year after stenting. No conclusion can be drawn for high-risk patients who could not be randomised. The consistency between findings from all trials of such interruption suggests the need for a reappraisal of guidelines for DAPT after coronary stenting towards shorter duration of treatment. INSET: Panel Research in context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that compares the traditional heparin treatment with intravenous enoxaparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It details the method of the randomized open-label study in which patients with myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive both treatments. The findings of the study indicate that intravenous enoxaparin significantly reduce clinical ischaemic outcomes compared to traditional heparin treatment.

The article presents a cohort study which assessed whether the cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) polymorphism affected the long term prognosis of patients treated with clopidogrel after myocardial infarction. Clopidogrel is part of an antiplatelet regimen to prevent recurrent ischaemic events after acute coronary syndromes. 259 patients less than 45 years old who were exposed to clopidogrel treatment for at least one month underwent CYP2C19 determination. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent coronary revascularisation during exposure to clopidogrel was the primary endpoint. Researchers found that the CYP2C19*2 variant to be a major determinant of prognosis in the patients.