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 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)     

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.     

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.     

Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin After PCI: The TWILIGHT Platelet Substudy

BackgroundAn evolving strategy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves withdrawal of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), or aspirin, while maintaining P2Y₁₂ inhibition. However, the pharmacodynamic effects of this approach on blood thrombogenicity and platelet reactivity remain unknown.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the antithrombotic potency of ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus ASA among high-risk patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents.MethodsThis was a mechanistic substudy within the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, which randomized patients undergoing PCI to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus ASA following 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy. Substudy participants were enrolled after randomization, at which time ex vivo assays to quantify thrombus size under dynamic flow conditions and platelet reactivity were performed. Pharmacodynamic assessments were repeated 1 to 6 months thereafter. The primary endpoint was thrombus size at the post-randomization visit with platelet reactivity following stimuli to arachidonic acid, collagen, adenosine diphosphate, and thrombin as secondary endpoints. Results were analyzed using analysis of covariance.ResultsA total of 51 patients were enrolled, among whom 42 underwent perfusion assays at baseline and follow-up with a median time between studies of 1.5 months. The adjusted mean difference in post-randomization thrombus area was similar between groups: −218.2 μm² (95% confidence interval [CI]: −575.9 to 139.9 μm²; p = 0.22). Markers sensitive to cyclo-oxygenase-1 blockade, including platelet reactivity in response to arachidonic acid (mean difference: 10.9 U; 95% CI: 1.9 to 19.9 U) and collagen (mean difference: 9.8 U; 95% CI: 0.8 to 18.8 U) stimuli were higher among patients receiving placebo, whereas levels of platelet reactivity were similar with adenosine diphosphate and thrombin.ConclusionsAmong high-risk patients receiving drug-eluting stents, the antithrombotic potency of ticagrelor monotherapy is similar to that of ticagrelor plus ASA with respect to ex vivo blood thrombogenicity, whereas markers sensitive to cyclo-oxygenase-1 blockade are increased in the absence of ASA. (Platelet Substudy of the TWILIGHT Trial; NCT04001374).     

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.     

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.     

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom invasive therapy was planned.BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS with DM undergoing invasive treatment remain unknown.MethodsThis pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial included 892 patients with ACS with DM and 3,124 patients with ACS without DM randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding (both assessed 12 months after randomization).ResultsThe primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (11.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 55 patients (13.0%) in the prasugrel group in the DM cohort (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 1.24; p = 0.383) and in 132 patients (8.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 81 patients (5.2%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (hazard ratio: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 2.24; p < 0.001). There was a significant treatment arm–by–diabetic status interaction (p_int = 0.0035). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 27 patients (6.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 19 patients (5.5%) in the prasugrel group (p = 0.425) in the DM cohort and in 68 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 60 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (p = 0.500).ConclusionsDM seems to affect the efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. In patients with DM, the efficacy of ticagrelor was comparable with that of prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)     

Aspirin-Free Prasugrel Monotherapy Following Coronary Artery Stenting in Patients With Stable CAD: The ASET Pilot Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that prasugrel monotherapy following successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation is feasible and safe in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).BackgroundRecent studies have suggested that short dual-antiplatelet therapy strategies may provide an adequate balance between ischemic and bleeding risks. However, the complete omission of aspirin immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been tested so far.MethodsThe study was a multicenter, single-arm, open-label trial with a stopping rule based on the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis (if >3, trial enrollment would be terminated). Patients undergoing successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation for stable CAD with SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores <23 were included. All participants were on standard dual-antiplatelet therapy at the time of index PCI. Aspirin was discontinued on the day of the index procedure but given prior to the procedure; prasugrel was administered in the catheterization laboratory immediately after the successful procedure, and aspirin-free prasugrel became the therapy regimen from that moment. Patients were treated solely with prasugrel for 3 months. The primary ischemic endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, spontaneous target vessel myocardial infarction, or definite stent thrombosis, and the primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 and 5 bleeding up to 3 months.ResultsFrom February 22, 2018, to May 7, 2019, 201 patients were enrolled. All patients underwent PCI for stable CAD. Overall, 98.5% of patients were adherent to prasugrel at 3-month follow-up. The primary ischemic and bleeding endpoints occurred in 1 patient (0.5%). No stent thrombosis events occurred.ConclusionsAspirin-free prasugrel monotherapy following successful everolimus-eluting stent implantation demonstrated feasibility and safety without any stent thrombosis in selected low-risk patients with stable CAD. These findings may help underpin larger randomized controlled studies to evaluate the aspirin-free strategy compared with traditional dual-antiplatelet therapy following PCI. (Acetyl Salicylic Elimination Trial: The ASET Pilot Study [ASET]; NCT03469856)     

Diabetes-Related Factors and the Effects of Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in the THEMIS and THEMIS-PCI Trials

BackgroundTHEMIS (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study) (n = 19,220) and its pre-specified THEMIS-PCI (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) (n = 11,154) subanalysis showed, in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (median duration 10.0 years; HbA_1c 7.1%) and stable coronary artery disease without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, that ticagrelor plus aspirin (compared with placebo plus aspirin) produced a favorable net clinical benefit (composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, fatal bleeding, and intracranial bleeding) if the patients had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.ObjectivesIn these post hoc analyses, the authors examined whether the primary efficacy outcome (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke: 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]), primary safety outcome (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction–defined major bleeding) and net clinical benefit varied with diabetes-related factors.MethodsOutcomes were analyzed across baseline diabetes duration, HbA_1c, and antihyperglycemic medications.ResultsIn THEMIS, the incidence of 3-point MACE increased with diabetes duration (6.7% for ≤5 years, 11.1% for >20 years) and HbA_1c (6.4% for ≤6.0%, 11.8% for >10.0%). The relative benefits of ticagrelor plus aspirin on 3-point MACE reduction (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; p = 0.04) were generally consistent across subgroups. Major bleeding event rate (overall: 1.6%) did not vary by diabetes duration or HbA_1c and was increased similarly by ticagrelor across all subgroups (HR: 2.32; p < 0.001). These findings were mirrored in THEMIS-PCI. The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor plus aspirin did not differ by baseline antihyperglycemic therapy. In THEMIS-PCI, but not THEMIS, ticagrelor generally produced favorable net clinical benefit across diabetes duration, HbA_1c, and antihyperglycemic medications.ConclusionTicagrelor plus aspirin yielded generally consistent and favorable net clinical benefit across the diabetes-related factors in THEMIS-PCI but not in the overall THEMIS population.     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor With Aspirin in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess whether the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are consistent among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and unstable angina treated with drug-eluting stents.BackgroundTicagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT has not been investigated in patients with STEMI.MethodsThis was a pre-specified, stratified, subgroup analysis of the STEMI cohort from the TICO (Ticagrelor Monotherapy After 3 Months in the Patients Treated With New Generation Sirolimus Stent for Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, which constituted 36% of the total population. The primary outcome was a composite of major bleeding and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or target vessel revascularization). The secondary outcomes were major bleeding and MACCE.ResultsThe incidence of the primary outcome was 4.4% in patients with STEMI (n = 1,103), 6.0% in those with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 1,027), and 4.1% in those with unstable angina (n = 926), without statistical significance (p = 0.09). Compared with ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT showed consistent effects on the primary outcome across clinical presentations (p for interaction [p_int] = 0.64). Furthermore, the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on the reduction of major bleeding was consistent across clinical presentations (p_int = 0.36). The effect of ticagrelor monotherapy on MACCE was also consistent in patients with STEMI, without evidence of a higher risk for MACCE (p_int = 0.14).ConclusionsThis pre-specified subgroup analysis revealed no heterogeneity in the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT, compared with 12-month DAPT, for the primary outcome, major bleeding, and MACCE across clinical presentations including STEMI, though larger studies are needed to demonstrate these findings with adequate power. (Ticagrelor Monotherapy After 3 Months in the Patients Treated With New Generation Sirolimus Stent for Acute Coronary Syndrome [TICO Study]; NCT02494895)     

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)     

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectivesWe sought to assess the effects of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity.MethodsWe pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding.ResultsOf 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P_interaction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P_interaction = 0.920).ConclusionsP2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853)     

Effect of Ticagrelor on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (HEALING-AMI)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on left ventricular (LV) remodeling after reperfusion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in humans.BackgroundAnimal studies have demonstrated that ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel better protects myocardium against reperfusion injury and improves remodeling after myocardial infarction.MethodsIn this investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial performed at 10 centers in Korea, patients were enrolled if they had naive STEMI successfully treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and at least 6-month planned duration of dual-antiplatelet treatment. The coprimary endpoints were LV remodeling index (LVRI) (a relative change of LV end-diastolic volume) measured on 3-dimensional echocardiography and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide level at 6 months.ResultsAmong initially enrolled patients with STEMI (n = 336), 139 in each group completed the study. LVRI at 6 months was numerically lower with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (0.6 ± 18.6% vs. 4.5 ± 16.5%; p = 0.095). Ticagrelor significantly reduced the 6-month level of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (173 ± 141 pg/ml vs. 289 ± 585 pg/ml; p = 0.028). These differences were prominent in patients with pre-PCI TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) flow grade 0. By multivariate analysis, ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the risk for positive LV remodeling (LVRI >0%) (odds ratio: 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.33 to 0.95; p = 0.030). The LV end-diastolic volume index remained unchanged during ticagrelor treatment (from 54.7 ± 12.2 to 54.2 ± 12.2 ml/m²; p = 0.629), but this value increased over time during clopidogrel treatment (from 54.6 ± 11.3 to 56.4 ± 13.9 ml/m²; p = 0.056) (difference −2.3 ml/m²; 95% confidence interval: −4.8 to 0.2 ml/m²; p = 0.073). Ticagrelor reduced LV end-systolic volume index (from 27.0 ± 8.5 to 24.7 ± 8.4 ml/m²; p < 0.001), whereas no reduction was seen with clopidogrel (from 26.2 ± 8.9 to 25.6 ± 11.0 ml/m²; p = 0.366) (difference −1.8 ml/m²; 95% confidence interval: −3.5 to −0.1 ml/m²; p = 0.040).ConclusionsTicagrelor was superior to clopidogrel for LV remodeling after reperfusion of STEMI with primary PCI. (High Platelet Inhibition With Ticagrelor to Improve Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction [HEALING-AMI]; NCT02224534)     

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Patients With Vascular Disease and Renal Dysfunction: From the COMPASS Trial

BackgroundChronic kidney disease is associated with an increased risk of both bleeding and ischemic cardiovascular events.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the balance of risks and benefits from the dual pathway antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily [bd] plus aspirin, compared with aspirin) in vascular patients with or without moderate renal dysfunction.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial involving 27,395 patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease.ResultsIn COMPASS, 21,111 patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline of ≥60 ml/min, 6,276 had a GRF of <60 ml/min. Both the primary efficacy outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding were more frequent in those with renal dysfunction, and the frequency of these outcome events was inversely related to GFR. However, the primary outcome was consistently reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bd plus aspirin, irrespective of GFR category (GFR ≥60 ml/min, 3.5% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 4.5% aspirin alone, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64 to 0.90; GFR <60 ml/min, 6.4% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 8.4% aspirin alone, HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.94). Major bleeding was more frequent with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in those with GFR ≥60 ml/min (2.9% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 1.6% aspirin alone, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.28) and similarly in those with GFR <60 ml/min (3.9% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 2.7% aspirin alone, HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.07).ConclusionsThe benefits of the dual pathway COMPASS regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bd plus aspirin), versus aspirin alone, are preserved in patients with moderate renal dysfunction without evidence of an excess hazard of bleeding.     

Comparative Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Unconscious and Conscious Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BackgroundUp to 70% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients have a relevant coronary stenosis which may need revascularization. The short- and long-term ischemic and bleeding risk of unconscious and conscious OHCA patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is largely unknown.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the occurrence of 1-year outcomes after PCI between OHCA patients, stratified on the basis of state of consciousness, with patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) not preceded by OHCA.MethodsThe study assessed the unadjusted and adjusted risk of cardiovascular events in a prospective single-center cohort of 9,303 consecutive PCI patients.ResultsAt 1 year, all-cause mortality was higher in unconscious (49.5%) but not in conscious OHCA (8.9%) patients than in ACS patients (8.0%), and both unconscious and conscious OHCA patients were more likely than ACS patients to experience definite stent thrombosis (4.4% and 3.5% vs 1.3%) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding (17.8% and 9.0% vs 5.1%). The higher hazards were largely determined by events occurring in the first 30 days. After multivariable adjustment, only unconscious OHCA patients remained at increased risk of death (adjusted HR: 3.27; 95% CI: 2.65-4.05), definite stent thrombosis (adjusted HR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.30-4.43), and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding (adjusted HR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.82-3.47) at 1 year.ConclusionsAt 1 year after PCI, unconscious OHCA patients were at higher risk of death, definite stent thrombosis, and bleeding, while conscious OHCA patients had similar hazards compared with an all-comer ACS population without OHCA. Dedicated PCI strategies for OHCA patients taking into account their state of consciousness after resuscitation are warranted.     

Association of Multiple Enrichment Criteria With Ischemic and Bleeding Risks Among COMPASS-Eligible Patients

BackgroundThe COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial found clinical benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but at the expense of increased bleeding risk in patients with stable vascular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the balance of ischemic and bleeding risks according to the presence of ≥1 enrichment criteria in “COMPASS-eligible” patients.MethodsKey COMPASS selection criteria were applied to identify a COMPASS-eligible population (n = 16,875) from the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry of stable atherothrombotic patients. Ischemic outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Bleeding outcome was serious bleeding (hemorrhagic stroke, hospitalization for bleeding, transfusion).ResultsPatients were categorized according to the enrichment criteria: age >65 years (81.5%), diabetes (41.0%), moderate renal failure (40.2%), peripheral artery disease (33.7%), current smoker (13.8%), heart failure (13.3%), ischemic stroke (11.1%), and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (8.7%). Each criterion was associated with a consistent increase in ischemic and bleeding events, but no individual subgroup derived a more favorable trade-off. Patients with multiple criteria had a dramatic increase in ischemic risk (7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6% to 8.7%], 12.5% [95% CI: 11.1% to 14.1%], 16.6% [95% CI: 14.7% to 18.6%], and 21.8% [95% CI: 19.9% to 23.9%] with 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 enrichment criteria, respectively), but a more modest absolute increase in bleeding risk (1.5% [95% CI: 0.9% to 2.1%], 1.8% [95% CI: 1.3% to 2.2%], 2.0% [95% CI: 1.5% to 2.6%], 3.2% [95% CI: 2.6% to 3.9%]).ConclusionsIn a population of stable vascular patients at high risk of atherothrombotic events, the subset with multiple enrichment criteria had a greater absolute increase in ischemic than in bleeding risk and may be good candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin.     

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.     

Cancer Patients Have a Higher Risk of Thrombotic and Ischemic Events After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ObjectivesThis study sought to define the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI) in cancer patients compared with noncancer patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundCancer patients are considered to be at high thrombotic risk, but data on whether this is the case after PCI remain inconclusive.MethodsCancer patients undergoing PCI at Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2013, were identified by cross-linking institutional cancer and PCI databases and by propensity score matching to noncancer patients. The combined primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, MI, and revascularization rate at 5-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were the individual primary endpoint components, cause of mortality, ST, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2+ bleeding.ResultsThe primary endpoint occurred in 48.6% of 416 cancer and in 33.0% of 768 noncancer patients (p < 0.001). In competing risk analyses, cancer patients had a higher rate of noncardiac death (24.0% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of cardiac death (5.0% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.001). Cancer patients had a higher rate of MI (16.1% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001), ST (6.0% vs. 2.3%; p < 0.001), repeat revascularization (21.2% vs. 10.0%; p < 0.001), and bleeding (6.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.03). The most critical period for ST in cancer patients was in the first year after PCI. The dual antiplatelet therapy score was predictive of thrombotic and ischemic events in both groups.ConclusionsCancer patients have a higher risk of thrombotic and ischemic events after PCI, identifiable by a high dual antiplatelet therapy score. These findings have important implications for antiplatelet therapy decisions.     

Effect of CYP2C19 Genotype on Ischemic Outcomes During Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the effect of CYP2C19 genotype on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who predominantly underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), comparing those treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel.BackgroundThe effect of CYP2C19 genotype on treatment outcomes with ticagrelor or prasugrel compared with clopidogrel is unclear.MethodsDatabases through February 19, 2020, were searched for studies reporting the effect of CYP2C19 genotype on ischemic outcomes during ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel treatment. Study eligibility required outcomes reported for CYP2C19 genotype status and clopidogrel and alternative P2Y₁₂ inhibitors in patients with CAD with at least 50% undergoing PCI. The primary analysis consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A secondary analysis was conducted by adding non-RCTs to the primary analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the 2 drug regimens and test interaction with CYP2C19 genotype.ResultsOf 1,335 studies identified, 7 RCTs were included (15,949 patients, mean age 62 years; 77% had PCI, 98% had acute coronary syndromes). Statistical heterogeneity was minimal, and risk for bias was low. Ticagrelor and prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in a significant reduction in ischemic events (relative risk: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.83) in CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers but not in noncarriers (relative risk: 1.0; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.25). The test of interaction on the basis of CYP2C19 genotype status was statistically significant (p = 0.013), suggesting that CYP2C19 genotype modified the effect. An additional 4 observational studies were found, and adding them to the analysis provided the same conclusions (p value of the test of interaction <0.001).ConclusionsThe effect of ticagrelor or prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in reducing ischemic events in patients with CAD who predominantly undergo PCI is based primarily on the presence of CYP2C19 loss-of-function carrier status. These results support genetic testing prior to prescribing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy.