Search

Background: Clopidogrel associated with aspirin is the recommended treatment for patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although severe PCI-related events are rare, evidence suggests that PCI-related myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are frequent complications that can impact the clinical prognosis of the patients. Antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y 12 receptor inhibitor such as ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural ischemic complications while maintaining a similar safety profile as compared with conventional dual antiplatelet therapy by aspirin and clopidogrel in this setting., Methods: Assessment of Loading with the P2Y 12 inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting (ALPHEUS) (NCT02617290) is an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study in patients with stable coronary artery disease who are planned for an elective PCI. In total, 1,900 patients will be randomized before a planned PCI to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or a loading dose of clopidogrel (300 or 600 mg) in addition to aspirin. Patients will then receive a dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary ischemic end point is PCI-related myocardial infarction (myocardial infarction type 4a or 4b) or major myocardial injury within 48 hours (or at hospital discharge if earlier) after elective PCI/stent. Safety will be evaluated by major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) at 48 hours (or discharge if it occurs earlier)., Conclusion: ALPHEUS is the first properly sized trial comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel in the setting of elective PCI and is especially designed to show a reduction in periprocedural events, a surrogate end point for mortality., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy., Methods: We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later., Results: In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups., Conclusions: This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.).

Background: Currently, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is widely acknowledged to be the first leading cause of fatality in the world with 31% of all deaths worldwide and is predicted to remain as such in 2030. Furthermore, CVD is also a major cause of morbidity in adults worldwide. Among these diseases, the coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause, accounting for over 40% of CVD deaths. Despite a decline in mortality rates, the consequences of more effective preventive and management programs, the burden of CAD remains significant. Indeed, the rise in the prevalence of modifiable risk factors due to changes in lifestyle and health behaviors has further increased the burden of this epidemic. Our objective was to evaluate the hospital burden of CAD via MI trends and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in the French Prospective Payment System (PPS). Methods: MI/PCI were identified in the national PPS database from 2009 to 2014 for patients aged 20 to 99, living in metropolitan France. We examined hospitalisation, readmission and mortality trends using standardised rates. Results: Over the six-year period, we identified 678,021 patients, representing 900,121 stays of which, 215,224 had a MI and a PCI. Admission trends increased by nearly 25%. Acute MI cases increased every year, with an alarming increase in women, and more specifically in young women. Men were 3 times more hospitalised than women, who were older. A North-South divide was noted. Twenty seven percent of patients experienced readmission within 1 month. Trajectories of care were significantly different by sex and age. Overall in-hospital death was 3.3%, decreasing by 15% during the period. The highest adjusted mortality rates were observed for inpatients aged <40 or >80. Conclusion: We outlined the public health burden of this condition and the importance of improving the trajectories of care as an aid for better care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Improvements in the management of haemophilia have led to a significant increase in the life expectancy of haemophilia patients, which is now close to the life expectancy in the general male population. Therefore, age-related conditions, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD), have become increasingly common in these patients. The management of CVD, especially that of coronary artery disease (CAD), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF), is particularly challenging in patients with haemophilia due to the need to find an adequate balance between bleeding and ischemic risk, requiring close coordination between cardiologists and haemophilia specialists. However, specific recommendations and relevant literature and data are scarce. Therefore, we propose pragmatic and practical therapeutic suggestions, based on the available literature and our own experience, for the management of ACS, stable angina and AF in patients with haemophilia. Overall, evidence and experience suggest that they should be treated much in the same way as the general CVD population, following standard guidelines, while choosing available treatment options known to be associated with low rates of bleeding complications. Treatments advocated for patient with haemophilia include antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors), antithrombin therapy such as heparin or bivalirudin, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors), transradial cardiac catheterization, and use of bare metal (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES). Antithrombotic agents with shorter half-lives that are reversible or have an antidote offer a safer choice in this setting. In addition, optimal clotting factor replacement therapy should be tailored to the increased risk of bleeding associated with invasive procedures and antithrombotic therapies, particularly during the acute phase of ACS. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy, a combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor, for 6-12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in all patients and for 1 year in all patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), irrespective of revascularization strategy. Clopidogrel has a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile that results in a delayed and/or subtherapeutic antiplatelet effect, and wide variability in antiplatelet response. New P2Y12 inhibitors, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor, have favorable pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy over clopidogrel and offer an alternative antiplatelet treatment strategy in specific patients. Prasugrel has more potent, rapid, and consistent effects on inhibiting ADP-induced platelet aggregation than clopidogrel. Ticagrelor also appears to have more rapid and consistent antiplatelet effects than clopidogrel. The higher levels of antiplatelet inhibition provided by prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with standard-dose clopidogrel result in improved ischemic outcomes in patients with ACS. Despite an increase in bleeding risk, prasugrel and ticagrelor appear to have a better net clinical benefit, especially in higher-risk patients with ACS. INSET: Key issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which investigated if immediate intervention on admission can cause a reduction in myocardial infarction. The study included 352 patients from 13 centers in France, who were diagnosed with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The peak troponin value during hospitalization and the composite of death were measured on each patient. Study authors compared the clinical outcome of immediate and delayed intervention. They concluded that immediate and delayed intervention showed no difference in reducing myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation.

Copyright of Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A response by Gilles Montalescot and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "ABOARD Investigators, Immediate vs. Delayed Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Randomized Clinical Trial," published in a 2009 issue, is presented.

Background The prevalence and associated-risk of asymptomatic multisite artery disease (MSAD) in high risk coronary patients are unknown. Whether systematic identification and aggressive management of asymptomatic MSAD is clinically relevant in high risk coronary patients has not been evaluated. Methods We randomly assigned 521 high risk coronary patients defined by the presence of three-vessel coronary disease ( n = 304) or recent acute coronary syndrome beyond the age of 75 years ( n = 215) to either a strategy of systematic detection of asymptomatic MSAD combined with an aggressive secondary prevention ( n = 263) or to a more conventional strategy based on treatment of coronary artery disease only with standard of care ( n = 258). The primary end point was the time to first occurrence of death, any organ failure or ischemic event leading to re-hospitalization through two years of follow-up. Results The pro-active strategy identified asymptomatic MSAD in 21.7% of patients with few revascularizations (3.6%); the pro-active pharmacological secondary prevention was obtained in > 85% of patients and life-style changes in < 60% of patients. At 2-year follow-up, the primary end point occurred in 44.9% of patients in the pro-active group and 43.0% of patients in the conventional group (HR 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.34]. The rate of major bleeding did not differ significantly between groups (4.6% vs 5.0%; HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.91). Conclusion In high risk coronary patients, there is no apparent benefit of a systematic detection of asymptomatic extra-coronary atherothrombotic disease and intensified treatment over a 2-year follow-up period. (Funded by the Academic Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and Institut de l'Athérothrombose; AMERICA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00445835 ). [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--Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring- Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown. Methods and Results--In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y12/aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835-1.461; P=0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively (P=0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm (P=0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively (P=0.10). Conclusions--Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intravenous enoxaparin did not reduce significantly the primary end point (p [ 0.06) compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the randomized Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated with primary angioplasty and intravenous enoxaparin Or unfractionated heparin to Lower ischemic and bleeding events at short- and Long-term follow-up (ATOLL) trial. We present the results of the prespecified per-protocol analysis excluding patients who did not receive the treatment allocated by randomization or received both enoxaparin and UFH. We evaluated all-cause mortality, complication of myocardial infarction, procedural failure, or major bleeding (primary end point) and all-cause mortality, recurrent acute coronary syndrome, or urgent revascularization (main secondary end point). Baseline and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment groups. Of 910 randomized patients, 795 patients (87.4%) were treated according to the protocol with consistent anticoagulation using intravenous enoxaparin (n = 400) or UFH (n = 395). Enoxaparin reduced significantly the rates of the primary end point (relative risk [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 0.94, p = 0.012) and the main secondary end point (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63, p <0.0001). There was less major bleeding with enoxaparin (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.01, p = 0.050) contributing to the significant improvement of the net clinical benefit (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.74, p = 0.0002). All-cause mortality was also reduced with enoxaparin (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74, p = 0.003). In conclusion, in the perprotocol analysis of the ATOLL trial, pertinent to >87% of the study population, enoxaparin was superior to UFH in reducing ischemic end points and mortality. [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.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between the loss-of-function cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19)*2 variant (10 studies, 11,959 patients) or the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) (13 studies, 48,674 patients) and ischemic outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) in patients treated with clopidogrel. Background: In clopidogrel-treated patients, increased cardiovascular risk has been identified with the loss-of-function CYP2C19*2 allele or the use of PPIs, some of them CYP2C19 inhibitors. To further estimate the effect of a reduction in activity of this enzyme, the authors performed a meta-analysis of the studies available. Methods: The meta-analysis was performed on 23 studies using the odds ratio (OR) as the parameter of efficacy, with a fixed-effect model. The end points were MACE, mortality, or stent thrombosis. Results: Of the 11,959 patients, carriers of the loss-of-function CYP2C19*2 allele (28% [n = 3,418]) displayed a 30% increase in the risk for MACE compared with noncarriers (9.7% vs. 7.8%; OR: 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12 to 1.49; p < 0.001). This single gene variant (CYP2C19*2) was also associated with an excess of mortality (1.8% vs. 1.0%; OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.10 to 2.91; p = 0.019; n = 6,225) and of stent thrombosis (2.9% vs. 0.9%; OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 2.14 to 5.57; p < 0.001; n = 4,905). This increased risk was apparent in both heterozygotes and homozygotes and was independent of the baseline cardiovascular risk. PPI users (42% [n = 19,614]) displayed increased risk for MACE (21.8% vs. 16.7%; OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.48; p < 0.001) and mortality (12.7% vs. 7.4%; OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.30; p < 0.001; n = 23,977) compared with nonusers. The impact of PPI use was, however, significantly influenced by baseline cardiovascular risk, being significant only in high-risk patients. Conclusions: In this global meta-analysis, reduced CYP2C19 function appears to expose clopidogrel-treated patients to excess cardiovascular risk and mortality. Conflicting results among studies may be explained by differences in types and/or levels of risk of patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background and Aim: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) carries an increased risk of coronary artery disease. Little is known on its prevalence and long-term prognostic significance in patients having sustained an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was to assess 5-year outvcome of FH in patients with AMI included in the FAST-MI 2005 and 2010 registries. Methods: FAST-MI is a nationwide French registry programme including consecutive patients with AMI ≤ 48 hours of onset during a one-month period in most French institutions every 5 years since 2005; 5-year follow-up is available in >95% of patients for the 2005 and 2010 cohorts. An algorithm derived from the Dutch lipid clinic criteria was used to define probable or definite FH (FH+). Results: From 7839 patients included, 5415 had a lipid profile assessed at admission, among whom FH could be estimated from the algorithm in 5292, and 5147 survived the initial hospital phase. The prevalence of FH was 2.8% (n=146), 2.5% in 2005 and 3.0% in 2010. FH+ patients were younger (53 ± 12 vs 65 ± 14 years, P<0.001), with a lower GRACE score (119 vs 142, P<0.001), and more family history of premature coronary artery disease (68.5% vs 25%, P<0.001). LDL at admission was 220 ± 70 vs 116 ± 39 mg/dl, P<0.001). FH+ patients received more statins at discharge than FH- patients (99% vs 90%, P<0.001). Five-year survival in patients surviving the initial hospital phase, was 87% in FH+ and 82% in FH- patients (P=0.11), and MACE-free survival was 81.5% and 79% respectively (P=0.57). After adjustment using a Cox proportional hazard model, however, 5-year mortality was significantly higher in FH+ patients (fully adjusted model: HR 1.82; 95%CI: 1.15-2.89, P=0.01), MACE-free survival was lower (HR 1.97, 1.34-2.88, P=0.001). Propensity score-matched cohorts showed a lower survival and MACE-free survival in HCF patients (87% vs 94%, P=0.005, and 82% vs 90%, P=0.002) (Figure). Conclusion: FH was found in 2.8% of patients admitted for AMI; after adjustment on baseline parameters and discharge medications including statin dose at discharge, the risk of 5-year death and death or MACE was twice as high in FH compared with non-FH patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]