Search

Drug-eluting stents (DES) are the recommended stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to determine why interventional cardiologists used non-DES and how it influenced patient prognoses. The efficacy and safety outcomes of the different stents were also compared in patients treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor. Of the PRAGUE-18 study patients, 749 (67.4%) were treated with DES, 296 (26.6%) with bare-metal stents (BMS), and 66 (5.9%) with bioabsorbable vascular scaffold/stents (BVS) between 2013 and 2016. Cardiogenic shock at presentation, left main coronary artery disease, especially as the culprit lesion, and right coronary artery stenosis were the reasons for selecting a BMS. The incidence of the primary composite net-clinical endpoint (EP) (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, or revascularization) at seven days was 2.5% vs. 6.3% and 3.0% in the DES, vs. with BMS and BVS, respectively (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.419–5.15, p = 0.002 for BMS vs. DES and 1.25 (0.29–5.39) p = 0.76 for BVS vs. DES). Patients with BMS were at higher risk of death at 30 days (HR 2.20; 95% CI 1.01–4.76; for BMS vs. DES, p = 0.045) and at one year (HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.19–3.69; p = 0.01); they also had a higher composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, and stroke (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.0–2.74; p = 0.047) at one year. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of primary EP whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. In conclusion, patients with the highest initial risk profile were preferably treated with BMS over BVS. BMS were associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events whether treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. [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]

Several randomized studies have suggested that pretreatment with statins may reduce a periprocedural biomarker release in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, results remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of a 1-day rosuvastatin therapy on troponin I release in patients who underwent nonemergency PCI. A total of 445 patients with angina pectoris were randomly assigned to therapy with rosuvastatin (20 mg 12 hours before coronary angiographyD20 mg immediately before PCI; rosuvastatin group, 220 patients) or PCI without statin therapy (control group, 225 patients). In patients taking statins (73%), rosuvastatin was added to their long-term statin therapy. The primary end point was the incidence of TnI microleak defined as TnI elevation >1.53 upper limit of normal, and the secondary end point was the incidence of post-PCI TnI elevation >33 upper limit of normal. The incidence of primary and secondary end point in the rosuvastatin versus control group was 13.6% versus 12% (p = 0.61) and 8.2% versus 7.1% (p = 0.67), respectively. Patients with C-reactive protein ≤2.0 mg/L had a decreased release of post-PCI TnI in the rosuvastatin group (0.032 [0.010 to 0.143] mg/L vs 0.056 [0.018 to 0.241] mg/L; p = 0.04). In conclusion, 1-day rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg twice a day) did not influence post-PCI TnI release in patients with angina. However, these results suggest that, in patients with an advanced inflammatory status, rosuvastatin loading therapy might have a cardioprotective effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prasugrel and ticagrelor have shown similar primary net-clinical endpoint (cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, stroke, severe bleeding or revascularization at day 7) and similar clinical effectivity in the PRAGUE-18 study at one year. Hypothesis: Impact of gender on the clinical outcome up to 12 months. Methods: A total of 1,230 patients with acute MI (931 males; 75.7%) treated with primary PCI were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. Key secondary efficacy endpoint (EP) was cardiovascular death, spontaneous MI, stroke within 30 days and at one year. Results: Females were older (64.9 vs 60.9 years; p<0.001), more often hypertensive (63.2% vs 47.4%; p<0.001) and diabetics (27.8% vs 17.9%; p<0.001) and there were less smokers (58.9% vs 66.8%; p=0.015). Females suffered significantly longer time interval from symptom onset to the admission to PCI center (3.3hrs vs 2.5hrs; p=0.001). In females, the primary net-clinical EP at 7 days was not different from males (4.4% vs 3.9%; p=0.645) but at 30 days, the rate of MI and combined key efficacy EP occurred significantly more often(5.4% vs 2.7%; p=0.030 [HR 5.234; 95% CI, 1.902-14.401] and 3.3% vs 0.6%; p=0.001 [HR 2.007 95% CI, 1.072-3.759], respectively). At 12 months, there was no significant difference between the groups, though a strong trend to higher rate of MI and bleeding was found (HR 1.968, 95% CI 0.985-3.929; p=0.055 and HR 1.399 95% CI 0.970-2.020; p=0.073, respectively). End of potent P2Y12 treatment within one year was observed more often in females than males, though not statistically significant (58.5% vs 52.0%; p=0.053). No significant difference was found in the economically driven switch to clopidogrel (43.1% vs 37.8%; p=0.103). Conclusions: In the PRAGUE-18 study, the female patients were at higher baseline clinical risk, had significantly higher rate of MI and cardiovascular death/MI/stroke at 30 days and tended to have a higher rate of repeated MI and bleeding complications at 12 months. Longer pre-hospital ischemic time in females requires special attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]