Search

• Initial ischemic risk in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients affects prognosis more than ischemic time. • Longer ischemic time increases ischemic events only in high-risk patients. • Longer ischemic time increases all-cause mortality only in high-risk patients. • Post-percutaneous coronary intervention suboptimal flow is more frequent in patients with longer ischemic time. Based on previous studies with clopidogrel, the time between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) symptoms onset and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was proven as important prognostic factor. Our aim was to assess the relationship between symptoms onset to needle time (SNT) and procedural results and the occurrence of ischemic endpoints in primary angioplasty patients treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors. A total of 1,131 out of 1,230 patients randomized to the Prague-18 study (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in primary PCI) were divided into a high and a low-risk group. The effect of defined SNT on patients' ischemic endpoints and prognosis by their risk status at admission was tested. The median SNT was 3.2 hours. Longer SNTs resulted in a more frequent incidence of TIMI flow <3 post PCI (p=0.015). There were significant differences in the occurrence of the combined ischemic endpoint among the compared SNT groups at 30 days (p=0.032), and 1 year (p=0.011), with the highest incidence in the ≤1 h SNT group of patients. "Latecomers" (SNT>4 hs) in the high-risk group experienced more reinfarction within 1 year [OR (95% CI) 3.23 (1.09–9.62) p=0.035]; no difference was found in the low-risk group. In the era of intense antithrombotic medication, stratification of MI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, based on initial ischemic risk assessment affected prognosis more than symptom onset to needle time. Longer time delay was significantly related to increased incidence of ischemic events and all-cause mortality only in patients with high ischemic risk. In STEMI patients referred to primary PCI and treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor, longer symptom-to-needle times (SNT) were associated with more frequent suboptimal PCI results. Stratification of patients based on their initial ischemic risk (per TIMI criteria) proved to have more prognostic power than SNT. Compared to low-risk patients, high-risk patients had a significantly higher incidence of both ischemic events and all-cause mortality when presenting with SNT > 4 hours. Concerning early comers (SNT < 4 hours), mortality rate but not the incidence of ischemic endpoints was significantly higher in the high-risk group of patients. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prognostic significance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. The study aims to investigate the incidence of periprocedural MI in the era of high sensitivity diagnostic markers and intense antithrombotics, and its impact on early outcomes of patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty (pPCI). Data from the PRAGUE-18 (prasugrel versus ticagrelor in pPCI) study were analyzed. The primary net-clinical endpoint (EP) included death, spontaneous MI, stroke, severe bleeding, and revascularization at day 7. The key secondary efficacy EP included cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, and stroke within 30 days. The incidence of peri-pPCI MI was 2.3% (N = 28) in 1230 study patients. The net-clinical EP occurred in 10.7% of patients with, and in 3.6% of patients without, peri-pPCI MI (HR 2.92; 95% CI 0.91–9.38; P = 0.059). The key efficacy EP was 10.7% and 3.2%, respectively (HR 3.44; 95% CI 1.06–11.13; P = 0.028). Patients with periprocedural MI were at a higher risk of spontaneous MI (HR 6.19; 95% CI 1.41–27.24; P = 0.006) and stent thrombosis (HR 10.77; 95% CI 2.29–50.70; P = 0.003) within 30 days. Age, hyperlipidemia, multi-vessel disease, post-procedural TIMI <3, pPCI on circumflex coronary artery, and periprocedural GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor were independent predictors of peri-pPCI MI. In the era of intense antithrombotic therapy, the occurrence of peri-pPCI MI is despite highly sensitive diagnostic markers a rare complication, and is associated with an increased risk of early reinfarction and stent thrombosis. • Incidence of peri-PCI MI depends on the definition used, and its prognostic significance remains controversial. • Our data showed, that in the era of intense antithrombotic therapy, the occurrence of peri-pPCI MI is despite highly sensitive diagnostic markers a rare complication. • Presented study found, that peri-pPCI MI significantly affects the occurrence of ischaemic complications within the first months after the index procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study did not find any significant differences between 2 potent P2Y12 inhibitors.Objectives: The 1-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on: 1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel.Methods: A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at 1 year. Because patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel.Results: The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence interval: 0.742 to 1.835; p = 0.503). No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.999), and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (n = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003). Patients who were economically motivated to switch to clopidogrel had (compared with patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events; however, they also had lower ischemic risk.Conclusions: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRAGUE-18]; NCT02808767). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]