Search

Background: Direct stenting (DS) compared with conventional stenting (CS) after balloon predilatation may reduce distal embolization during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thereby improving tissue reperfusion. In contrast, DS may increase the risk of stent underexpansion and target lesion failure. Methods: In this sub-study of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial (NCT03296540), we reviewed the efficacy of DS versus CS in a cohort of contemporary, pretreated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI. We compared DS versus CS, assessing (1) stent diameter in the culprit lesion, (2) thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery post-PCI and complete ST-segment resolution (STR) one-hour post-PCI, and (3) target lesion failure at one year. For proportional variables, propensity score weighting was applied to account for potential treatment selection bias. Results: This prespecified sub-study included 446 patients, of whom 189 (42%) were treated with DS. Stent diameters were comparable between groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.2 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.17). Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and complete STR post-PCI rates were similar between groups (DS 93% vs. CS 90%, adjusted OR 1.16 [95% CI, 0.56–2.39], p = 0.69, and DS 72% vs. CS 58%, adjusted OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.77–2.16], p = 0.34, respectively). Moreover, target lesion failure rates at one year were comparable (DS 2% vs. 1%, adjusted OR 2.93 [95% CI 0.52–16.49], p = 0.22). Conclusion: In this contemporary pretreated STEMI cohort, we found no difference in early myocardial reperfusion outcomes between DS and CS. Moreover, DS seemed comparable to CS in terms of stent diameter and one-year vessel patency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the introduction of the first pharmacological therapy for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction in the early 20th century, treatment of myocardial infarction has evolved extensively throughout the years. Mechanical revascularization therapies such as the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, combined with the ongoing development of pharmacological therapies have successfully improved the survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction. To date, antiplatelet therapy (consisting of aspirin and an oral P2Y12 inhibitor) and anticoagulation therapy represent the main stay of pharmacological treatment in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The routine use of clopidogrel as antiplatelet agent has been largely replaced by the use of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors ticagrelor and prasugrel. Unfractionated heparin remains the preferred anticoagulant therapy, despite the development of other anticoagulants, including enoxaparin and bivalirudin. To date, limited evidence exists supporting a pre-hospital initiation of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in STEMI patients. The use of potent intravenous antiplatelet agents, including the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and the intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor, is currently restricted to specific clinical settings. While several potent antithrombotic agents already exist, the search for novel potent antithrombotic agents continues, with a focus on balancing antithrombotic properties with an improved safety profile to reduce excess bleeding. This review provides an overview of currently available pharmacological therapies for the treatment of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, and an outlook for the ongoing development of novel agents in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present research letter reports the 1-year clinical outcomes of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial, which allocated STEMI patients at first medical contact in the ambulance to receive either crushed or integral tablets of prasugrel loading dose. This trial aimed to investigate whether early enhanced antiplatelet effect constituted by the crushed potent oral P2Y12 inhibitor prasugrel could lead to improved early myocardial reperfusion and clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of pre-hospitally administered P2Y 12 inhibitor prasugrel in crushed versus integral tablet formulation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Early dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended in STEMI patients. Yet, onset of oral P2Y 12 inhibitor effect is delayed and varies according to formulation administered. The COMPARE CRUSH (Comparison of Pre-hospital Crushed Versus Uncrushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions) trial randomized patients with suspected STEMI to crushed or integral prasugrel 60-mg loading dose in the ambulance. Pharmacodynamic measurements were performed at 4 time points: before antiplatelet treatment, at the beginning and end of pPCI, and 4 h after study treatment onset. The primary endpoint was high platelet reactivity at the end of pPCI. The secondary endpoint was impact of platelet reactivity status on markers of coronary reperfusion. A total of 441 patients were included. In patients with crushed prasugrel, the occurrence of high platelet reactivity at the end of pPCI was reduced by almost one-half (crushed 34.7% vs. uncrushed 61.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.22 to 0.50; p < 0.01). Platelet reactivity <150 P2Y 12 reactivity units at the beginning of coronary angiography correlated with improved Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 in the infarct artery pre-pPCI (OR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.08 to 2.94; p = 0.02) but not ST-segment resolution (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.34; p = 0.40). Oral administration of crushed compared with integral prasugrel significantly improves platelet inhibition during the acute phase in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI. However, a considerable number of patients still exhibit inadequate platelet inhibition at the end of pPCI, suggesting the need for alternative agents to bridge the gap in platelet inhibition. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]