Clopidogrel Monotherapy After 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Diabetes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundDiabetes was reported to be associated with an impaired response to clopidogrel.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel monotherapy after very short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsA subgroup analysis was conducted on the basis of diabetes in the STOPDAPT-2 (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2) Total Cohort (N = 5,997) (STOPDAPT-2, n = 3,009; STOPDAPT-2 ACS [Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 for the Patients With ACS], n = 2,988), which randomly compared 1-month DAPT followed by clopidogrel monotherapy with 12-month DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel after cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent implantation. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or stroke) or bleeding (TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction] major or minor) endpoints at 1 year.ResultsThere were 2,030 patients with diabetes (33.8%) and 3967 patients without diabetes (66.2%). Regardless of diabetes, the risk of 1-month DAPT relative to 12-month DAPT was not significant for the primary endpoint (diabetes, 3.58% vs 4.12% [HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.56-1.37; P = 0.55]; nondiabetes, 2.46% vs 2.49% [HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.67-1.48; P = 0.97]; P_interaction = 0.67) and for the cardiovascular endpoint (diabetes, 3.28% vs 3.05% [HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.67-1.81; P = 0.70]; nondiabetes, 1.95% vs 1.43% [HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.85-2.25; P = 0.20]; P_interaction = 0.52), while it was lower for the bleeding endpoint (diabetes, 0.30% vs 1.50% [HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.68; P = 0.01]; nondiabetes, 0.61% vs 1.21% [HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.25-1.01; P = 0.054]; P_interaction = 0.19).ConclusionsClopidogrel monotherapy after 1-month DAPT compared with 12-month DAPT reduced major bleeding events without an increase in cardiovascular events regardless of diabetes, although the findings should be considered as hypothesis generating, especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome, because of the inconclusive result in the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial. (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 [STOPDAPT-2], NCT02619760; Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent–2 for the Patients With ACS [STOPDAPT-2 ACS], NCT03462498)     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents.BackgroundThe role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain.MethodsTwo randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019143120). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale.ResultsBleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 231 patients (3.2%) with ticagrelor and in 254 patients (3.5%) with DAPT (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor was associated with lower risk for all-cause (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.96; p = 0.027) and cardiovascular (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.99; p = 0.044) mortality. Rates of myocardial infarction (2.01% vs. 2.05%; p = 0.88), stent thrombosis (0.29% vs. 0.38%; p = 0.32), and stroke (0.47% vs. 0.36%; p = 0.30) were similar.ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.     

P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Following Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Network Meta-Analysis

BackgroundIt is still unknown which antiplatelet monotherapy should be continued after a period of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare aspirin vs P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (P2Y₁₂-I) monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsRandomized studies enrolling patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents and comparing aspirin or P2Y₁₂-I monotherapy after DAPT discontinuation vs prolonged DAPT or aspirin vs P2Y₁₂-I monotherapy after DAPT were included. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were myocardial infarction (MI) and major bleeding (MB), respectively. Point estimates for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using frequentist and Bayesian frameworks. Sensitivity analyses and treatment hierarchy were performed.ResultsNineteen studies encompassing 73,126 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was met. Under the frequentist framework, patients receiving aspirin had a significantly higher risk for MI compared with P2Y₁₂-I monotherapy (risk ratio: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.08-1.62). Compared with DAPT, both monotherapies reduced MB, but only P2Y₁₂-I showed equivalent efficacy in preventing MI. No significant differences in MB, death, and other thrombotic outcomes were observed. However, point estimates for the risk for stent thrombosis and stroke favored P2Y₁₂-I monotherapy. Consistent results were found in a fixed-effects model and the Bayesian framework, with all models having adequate convergence. P2Y₁₂-I vs aspirin monotherapy had the highest probability of being ranked first for reduction of all assessed outcomes.ConclusionsP2Y₁₂-I monotherapy following DAPT discontinuation after PCI is associated with a significantly lower risk for MI and similar risk for MB, suggesting a potentially relevant net clinical benefit vs aspirin monotherapy. These findings strengthen the rationale for further studies directly comparing the 2 monotherapies after DAPT in PCI patients.     

3- or 1-Month DAPT in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate 2 abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundCurrent-generation drug-eluting stents are preferred over bare-metal stents for HBR patients, but their optimal DAPT management remains unknown.MethodsThe XIENCE Short DAPT program included 3 prospective, multicenter, single-arm studies enrolling HBR patients who underwent successful PCI with a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. After 1 month (XIENCE 28 USA and XIENCE 28 Global) or 3 months (XIENCE 90) of DAPT, event-free patients discontinued the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. The postmarketing approval XIENCE V USA study was used as historical control in a propensity score–stratified analysis.ResultsA total of 3,652 patients were enrolled. The propensity-adjusted rate of the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or myocardial infarction was 5.4% among 1,693 patients on 3-month DAPT versus 5.4% in the 12-month DAPT historical control (P_{noninferiority} = 0.0063) and 3.5% among 1,392 patients on 1-month DAPT versus 4.3% in the 6-month DAPT historical control (P_{noninferiority} = 0.0005). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2 to 5 bleeding was not significantly lower with 3- or 1-month DAPT, while BARC types 3 to 5 bleeding was reduced in both experimental groups. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was 0.2% in XIENCE 90 (P < 0.0001 for the performance goal of 1.2%) and 0.3% in XIENCE 28.ConclusionsAmong HBR patients undergoing PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents, DAPT for 1 or 3 months was noninferior to 6 or 12 months of DAPT for ischemic outcomes and may be associated with less major bleeding and a low incidence of stent thrombosis.     

1-Month Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by Aspirin Monotherapy After Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Stent Implantation: One-Month DAPT Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by aspirin monotherapy after polymer-free drug-coated stent (PF-DCS) implantation is noninferior to 6 to 12 months of DAPT after biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) implantation.BackgroundIt is necessary to determine the optimal minimal duration of DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsIn this trial, 3,020 patients with coronary artery disease considered for PCI for noncomplex lesions were randomized to 1-month DAPT after PF-DCS (n = 1,507) or 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES (n = 1,513). The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke, or major bleeding (noninferiority hypothesis margin of 3%).ResultsThe primary endpoint occurred in 88 patients (5.9%) in the 1-month DAPT after PF-DCS group and 98 patients (6.5%) in the 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES group (absolute difference −0.7%; upper limit of 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval: 1.33%; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). The occurrence of major bleeding was not different (1.7% vs 2.5%; P = 0.136). There was no difference in the occurrence of stent thrombosis (0.7% vs 0.8%; P = 0.842).ConclusionsAmong patients who underwent PCI for noncomplex lesions, 1-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy after PF-DCS implantation was noninferior to 6- to 12-month DAPT after BP-DES implantation for the 1-year composite of cardiovascular events or major bleeding. The present findings need to be interpreted in the setting of different types of stents according to antiplatelet strategy. (A Randomized Controlled Comparison Between One Versus More Than Six Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Biolimus A9-Eluting Stent Implantation; NCT02513810)     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI in High-Risk Patients With Prior MI: A Prespecified TWILIGHT Substudy

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention.BackgroundPatients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization.ResultsA total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P_interaction = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P_interaction = 0.52).ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin After Complex PCI

BackgroundWhether a regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy attenuates bleeding complications without increasing ischemic risk in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing complex PCI from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial.MethodsIn the TWILIGHT trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free and adherent patients remained on ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length >60 mm, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, atherectomy device use, left main PCI, surgical bypass graft or chronic total occlusion as target lesions. Bleeding and ischemic endpoints were evaluated at 1 year after randomization.ResultsAmong 7,119 patients randomized in the main trial, complex PCI was performed in 2,342 patients. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor plus placebo resulted in significantly lower rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.2% vs. 7.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.76). BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was also significantly reduced (1.1% vs. 2.6%; HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80). There were no significant between-group differences in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (3.8% vs. 4.9%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.15), nor in stent thrombosis.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing complex PCI who initially completed 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, continuation of ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with lower incidence of bleeding without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to continuing ticagrelor plus aspirin. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Ticagrelor vs Prasugrel in a Contemporary Real-World Cohort Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundPotent P2Y₁₂ agents such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly utilized across the clinical spectrum of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data supporting their use in a patient population inclusive of both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients.ObjectivesThe authors compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in a real-world contemporary PCI cohort.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI between 2014 and 2019 discharged on either prasugrel or ticagrelor were included from the prospectively collected institutional PCI registry. Primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularization at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 3,858 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor: n = 2,771; prasugrel: n = 1,087), and a majority (48.4%) underwent PCI in the context of CCS. Patients prescribed ticagrelor were more likely to be female, have a history of cerebrovascular disease, and have ACS presentation, while those receiving prasugrel were more likely to be White with a higher prevalence of prior revascularization. No difference in the risk of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor vs prasugrel: 3.3% vs 3.1%; HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.54-1.43; P = 0.59). Rates of target vessel revascularization were significantly lower in the ticagrelor cohort (9.3% vs 14.0%; adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55-0.91; P = 0.007) with no differences in stroke or bleeding. The results were consistent in patients with CCS (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54) and ACS (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54), without evidence of interaction (P = 0.37), and confirmed across multivariable adjustment and propensity score stratification analysis.ConclusionsIn this contemporary patient population undergoing PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar 1-year efficacy and safety.     

Evaluation of Dual Versus Triple Therapy by Landmark Analysis in the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the early versus late benefits and risks of dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.MethodsA total of 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were randomized to receive dabigatran 110 mg, or dabigatran 150 mg plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (and no aspirin), or warfarin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 and 90 days.ResultsThere was a consistent and large reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in patients randomized to dual therapy during the first 30 days (110 mg: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.66; p < 0.0001; 150 mg: HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72; p = 0.0006) compared with warfarin triple therapy. There was early net clinical benefit in both dabigatran groups versus warfarin (110 mg: HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88; p = 0.0062; 150 mg: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79; p = 0.0015), due to larger reductions in bleeding than increased thrombotic events for dabigatran 110 mg and bleeding reduction without increased thrombotic risk for dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy. After the removal of aspirin in the warfarin group, bleeding remained lower with dabigatran 110 mg and was similar with dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin.ConclusionsIn RE-DUAL PCI, in which patients in the dual-therapy arms were treated with aspirin for an average of only 1.6 days, there was early net clinical benefit with both doses of dabigatran dual therapy, without an increase in thrombotic events with dabigatran 150 mg. This could be helpful in the subset of patients with elevated risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.     

Polymer-Based Versus Polymer-Free Stents in High Bleeding Risk Patients: Final 2-Year Results From Onyx ONE

BackgroundResolute Onyx polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) were noninferior in safety and effectiveness to BioFreedom polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stents (DCS) in high-bleeding-risk (HBR) patients treated with 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 1 year.ObjectivesThis study reports the final 2-year results of the randomized Onyx ONE trial.MethodsThe Onyx ONE (A Randomized Controlled Trial With Resolute Onyx in One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) for High-Bleeding Risk Patients) trial randomly assigned HBR patients to treatment with ZES or DCS. Following 1-month DAPT, event-free patients received SAPT (either aspirin or a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor at physician discretion). The primary safety endpoint, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year, was determined at 1 year. Rates of primary and secondary endpoints were calculated after final follow-up at 2 years.ResultsA total of 1,003 patients were randomly allocated to ZES and 993 patients to DCS. Follow-up was complete in 980 (97.7%) ZES patients and 962 (96.9%) DCS patients at 2 years. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 208 (21.2%) patients in the ZES group and 199 (20.7%) patients in the DCS group (risk difference: 0.5%; 95% CI: ?3.1% to 4.2%; P = 0.78) at 2 years without significant differences in individual components of the composite endpoint. The secondary effectiveness endpoint occurred in 217 (22.1%) patients in the ZES group and 202 (21.0%) patients in the DCS group (risk difference: 1.1%; 95% CI: ?2.5% to 4.8%; P = 0.54).ConclusionsAmong patients at HBR treated with 1-month DAPT followed by SAPT, the Resolute Onyx polymer-based ZES had similar 2-year outcomes for the primary safety and secondary effectiveness endpoint compared with the BioFreedom polymer-free DCS. (A Randomized Controlled Trial With Resolute Onyx in One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy [DAPT] for High-Bleeding Risk Patients [Onyx ONE]; NCT03344653)     

Prevalence and Impact of High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Left Main Artery Disease PCI

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and prognostic impact of high bleeding risk (HBR), as determined by the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, in real-world patients undergoing left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundLM PCI is often reserved for patients at increased risk for periprocedural adverse events. Patients at HBR represent a relevant percentage of this cohort, but their outcomes after LM PCI are still poorly investigated.MethodsAll patients undergoing LM PCI between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary care center were prospectively enrolled. Patients were defined as having HBR if they met at least 1 major or 2 minor Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 12 months.ResultsAmong 619 enrolled patients, 55.3% were at HBR. The rate of the primary endpoint was 4-fold higher in patients at HBR compared with those without HBR (20.5% vs 4.9%; HR: 4.43; 95% CI: 2.31-8.48), driven by an increased risk for all-cause death (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.88-8.02) and MI (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.83-20.9). Rates of target vessel or lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable in the 2 groups. Bleeding occurred more frequently in patients at HBR (HR: 3.77; 95% CI: 1.83-7.76). Consistent findings were observed after Cox multivariable regression adjustment.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing LM PCI, those with HBR are at increased risk for all-cause death, MI, and bleeding. Conversely, rates of repeat revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable, suggesting frailty and comorbidities as primary causes of worse outcomes in patients at HBR.     

DAPT Score and the Impact of Ticagrelor Monotherapy During the Second Year After PCI

ObjectivesThis study assessed the ability of the dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score in stratifying ischemic and bleeding risk in a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population.BackgroundThe DAPT score is recommended by guidelines as a tool to stratify ischemic and bleeding risk. Its utility in contemporary PCI is unknown.MethodsThe study studied patients in GLOBAL LEADERS (A Clinical Study Comparing Two Forms of Anti-platelet Therapy After Stent Implantation) who were free of major ischemic and bleeding events and adhered to antiplatelet strategy during the first year after PCI. The primary ischemic endpoint was the composite of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. The primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5. Outcomes from 12 to 24 months after PCI were compared according to the DAPT score.ResultsOf 11,289 patients that were event-free after the first year, 6,882 and 4,407 patients had low (<2) and high (≥2) DAPT scores, respectively. Compared with a low DAPT score, patients with a high DAPT score had a higher rate of the composites of myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis (0.70% vs. 1.55%; p < 0.0001). The rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was 0.54% and 0.30% in the low and high DAPT score groups, respectively (p = 0.058). The effect of ticagrelor versus aspirin monotherapy on primary ischemic and bleeding endpoints during the second year were no different among the 2 groups.ConclusionsThe DAPT score can stratify ischemic but not bleeding risk in a contemporary PCI population during the second year. The score did not provide additional value for selection of antiplatelet strategy beyond the first year.     

Bleeding and Ischemic Outcomes With Ticagrelor Monotherapy According to Body Mass Index

BackgroundThere is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial.MethodsThe TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m²], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m²], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m²]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol.ResultsAmong 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI.ConclusionsAmong high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories.     

Impact of Age on the Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Undergoing PCI

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of age on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundAs the risk for bleeding and ischemic complications after PCI increases with age, the authors conducted a pre-specified analysis of the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial to evaluate the possible benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy according to age.MethodsThe TWILIGHT trial enrolled patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents who fulfilled at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk criterion. Age ≥65 years was a clinical entry criterion. After 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, event-free patients were randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo or ticagrelor plus aspirin for an additional 12 months. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.ResultsA total of 3,113 patients (47.7%) were ≥65 years of age. At 1 year after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.5% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.71) without increasing ischemic events (4.2% vs. 4.4%; hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.35) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients ≥65 years of age. These findings were consistent in patients <65 years of age with respect to the primary (p_interaction = 0.62) and key secondary (p_interaction = 0.77) endpoints and across different age categories.ConclusionsA strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy following 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin without an increase in ischemic events, irrespective of age.     

Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundP2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor after a brief period of dual antiplatelet therapy can reduce bleeding without increasing ischemic harm after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of this approach among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains unknown.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients with DM undergoing PCI.MethodsThis was a pre-specified analysis of the DM cohort in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomized to aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The composite ischemic endpoint was all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.ResultsPatients with DM comprised 37% (n = 2,620) of the randomized cohort and were characterized by more frequent comorbidities and a higher prevalence of multivessel disease. The incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was 4.5% and 6.7% among patients with DM randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 0.91; p = 0.012). Ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with an increase in ischemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (4.6% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 1.09; p = 0.14). In the overall trial population, there was no significant interaction between DM status and treatment group for the primary bleeding or ischemic endpoints.ConclusionsCompared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy in reducing the risk of clinically relevant bleeding without any increase in ischemic events was consistent among patients with or without DM undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.BackgroundIn patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.MethodsRandomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.ResultsTwenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIn patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.     

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs).BackgroundThe outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined.MethodsPatients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year.ResultsPatients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding.ConclusionsThese results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)     

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Pre-Hospital Administered Crushed Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of pre-hospitally administered P2Y₁₂ inhibitor prasugrel in crushed versus integral tablet formulation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).BackgroundEarly dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended in STEMI patients. Yet, onset of oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor effect is delayed and varies according to formulation administered.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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 P2Y₁₂ 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).ConclusionsOral 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.     

Dabigatran Dual Therapy Versus Warfarin Triple Therapy Post–PCI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with or without diabetes mellitus in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BackgroundIt is unclear whether dual therapy is as safe and efficacious as triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsIn RE-DUAL PCI, 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation (993 with diabetes) who had undergone PCI were assigned to warfarin triple therapy (warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin) or dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg twice daily and clopidogrel or ticagrelor). Median follow-up was 13 months. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and the main efficacy outcome was the composite of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization.ResultsAmong patients with diabetes, the incidence of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was 15.2% in the dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy group versus 27.5% in the warfarin triple therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.67) and 23.8% in the dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy group versus 25.1% in the warfarin triple therapy group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.22). Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was also reduced with both dabigatran doses among patients without diabetes (dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.70; dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83). Risk for the efficacy endpoint was comparable between treatment groups for both patients with and those without diabetes. No interaction between treatment and diabetes subgroup could be observed, either for bleeding or for composite efficacy endpoints.ConclusionsIn this subgroup analysis, dabigatran dual therapy had a lower risk for bleeding and a comparable rate of the efficacy endpoint compared with warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.     

Effect of Evolocumab on Complex Coronary Disease Requiring Revascularization

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the ability of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab to reduce the risk of complex coronary atherosclerosis requiring revascularization.BackgroundPCSK9 inhibitors induce plaque regression and reduce the risk of coronary revascularization overall.MethodsFOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) was a randomized trial of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab versus placebo in 27,564 patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on statin therapy followed for a median of 2.2 years. Clinical documentation of revascularization events was blindly reviewed to assess coronary anatomy and procedural characteristics. Complex revascularization was the composite of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (as per previous analyses, ≥1 of: multivessel PCI, ≥3 stents, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, or total stent length >60 mm) or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG).ResultsIn this study, 1,724 patients underwent coronary revascularization, including 1,482 who underwent PCI, 296 who underwent CABG, and 54 who underwent both. Complex revascularization was performed in 632 (37%) patients. Evolocumab reduced the risk of any coronary revascularization by 22% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.86; p < 0.001), simple PCI by 22% (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.88; p < 0.001), complex PCI by 33% (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.84; p < 0.001), CABG by 24% (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.96; p = 0.019), and complex revascularization by 29% (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.84; p < 0.001). The magnitude of the risk reduction with evolocumab in complex revascularization tended to increase over time (20%, 36%, and 41% risk reductions in the first, second, and beyond second years).ConclusionsAdding evolocumab to statin therapy significantly reduced the risk of developing complex coronary disease requiring revascularization, including complex PCI and CABG individually. (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk (FOURIER); NCT01764633.)