Platelet reactivity-adjusted antiplatelet therapy in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Numerous number of evidences show that high on-treatment platelet reactivity is a well-known risk factor for adverse events in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Controversial situations still exist regarding the effectiveness of tailoring antiplatelet therapy according to platelet function monitoring. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized trials comparing platelet reactivity-adjusted antiplatelet therapy with conventional antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST), revascularization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). The safety end point was defined as major bleeding events. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with fixed-effect models. Six studies enrolling 6347 patients were included. Compared with conventional treatment, tailoring antiplatelet failed to reduce all-cause mortality (RR: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63–1.24, P = 0.48), MACE (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.14, P = 0.69), MI (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.95–1.21, P = 0.24), CV death (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40–1.19, P = 0.09), ST (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.50–1.38, P = 0.23), stroke or TIA (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.55–2.12, P = 0.83), revascularization (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.69–1.33, P = 0.79), and major bleeding events (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.53–1.17, P = 0.24).

Compared with traditional antiplatelet treatment, tailoring antiplatelet therapy according to platelet reactivity testing failed to reduce all-cause mortality, MACE, and major bleeding events in patients undergoing PCI.     

Prasugrel vs Ticagrelor for DAPT in Patients with ACS Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

IntroductionDual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a P2Y12 inhibitor added to aspirin is considered the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Prasugrel and ticagrelor are commonly used P2Y12 inhibitors, and a few head-to-head randomized control trials (RCTs) have been performed. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of these RCTs to compare the efficacy and adverse effects between these two agents when used in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane library for RCTs comparing prasugrel to ticagrelor in ACS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and all bleeding event. Estimates were calculated as random effects risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsSix trials with 6807 patients were included. There were no significant difference of MACE (RR 0.93; 95% CI [0.72–1.20]; p = 0.59; I² = 26%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.73–1.17]; p = 0.51; I² = 0%), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI [0.75–1.31]; p = 0.96; I² = 0%), MI (RR 0.87; 95% CI [0.60–1.27]; p = 0.48; I² = 27%), stent thrombosis (RR 0.64; 95% CI [0.39–1.04]; p = 0.07; I² = 0%), major bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI [0.70–1.26]; p = 0.68; I² = 6%), and all bleeding event (RR 0.92; 95% CI [0.77–1.09]; p = 0.32; I² = 0%) for prasugrel compared with ticagrelor.ConclusionThere are no significant difference of MACE, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor when added to aspirin among patients with ACS undergoing PCI.     

The efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

The optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains to be elucidated. Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor may be inferior to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients after PCI. PubMed, EMBASE (by Ovidsp), Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 2 October 2019. The composite of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding were evaluated. Pooled outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of four trials randomizing 29 089 participants were included. Compared with the dual antiplatelet therapy group (n = 14 559), the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group (n = 14 530) significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events (2.0% vs 3.1%; RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.84; P = .005). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 1.5%; RR: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .16), myocardial infarction (2.1% vs 1.9%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25; P = .46), stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.07; P = .57), or stent thrombosis (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.81-1.61; P = .44) between the two groups. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy did not show any significant difference in the adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, but markedly decreased the risk of bleeding among patients after PCI vs dual antiplatelet therapy. However, it still needs to be further confirmed due to limited data.     

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:We aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety ticagrelor monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods:Online databases were searched for relevant studies (published between the years 2015 and 2020) comparing 1-month Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy with 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention. Primary outcomes assessed efficacy whereas secondary outcomes assessed safety. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on a random effect model were calculated and the analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software.Results:Only 6 studies were selected for this meta-analytical research. The meta-analysis results: MI(OR:0.96, 95% CI:0.86–1.06, P = .40), stroke (OR:1.04, 95% CI: 0.87–1.25, P = .68), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.91,95% CI:0.76–1.10,P = .32),New-Q Wave (OR:0.85,95% CI: 0.72–1.00, P = .05), all cause death (OR:0.91, 95% CI: 0.87–0.96, P < .0001), death from cardiovascular (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58–0.99, P = .04), revascularization (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87–0.99, P = .03). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower rate of myocardial Infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis, all cause death, death from cardiovascular and revascularization (OR:0.91,95% CI:0.87–0.96, P < .0001) when compared to DAPT. Besides, DAPT was associated with a significantly higher rate of BARC3 or 5 bleeding (OR:0.85, 95% CI: 0.68–1.06; P = .16) when compared to ticagrelor. When bleeding was further subdivided, minor or major bleeding was also significantly higher with DAPT (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.41–1.27; P = .26). GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding was also significantly higher with DAPT (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.39–1.52; P = .45).Conclusion:Ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) can optimize ischemic and bleeding risks. And, it can reduce the occurrence of events outcome (MI, revascularization, stroke, stent thrombosis).     

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with an Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

The recent American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) recommend DAPT for 1 year in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome, with a Class IIb recommendation for continuation. We aim to assess the evidence for these recommendations using a meta-analytic approach.

The dawn of aspirin free strategy after short term dual antiplatelet for percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

There is still a debate about the safety and efficacy of an aspirin free strategy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Hence, we performed a meta-analysis comparing aspirin free strategy to dual antiplatlets therapy (DAPT). Randomized trials (RCTs) comparing aspirin free strategy to DAPT in patients who received PCI were included. The primary outcome of interest was bleeding, defined per the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC). Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACE); defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke, the individual component of MACE and stent thrombosis. A total of 4 RCTs with 29,089 patients were included. There was significant reduction in BARC 2,3 or 5 bleeding events in patients who were treated with aspirin free strategy versus DAPT (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39?, p?=?0.03, I²?=?89%). Moreover, although there was a trend of reduced major bleeding (BARC 3 or 5) outcomes in the aspirin free strategy group compared to the DAPT group, this did not achieve statistical significance (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.37–1.06, p?=?0.08, I²?=?795). Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin free strategy and DAPT in term of MACE (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82–1.03, p?=?0.13, I²?=?0%), all-cause mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77–1.04, p?=?0.15, I²?=?0%), MI (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74–1.08, p?=?0.24, I²?=?0%), stroke (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.99, p?=?0.66, I²?=?60%) or stent thrombosis (HR 0.1.01, 95% CI 0.83–1.22, p?=?0.93, I²?=?0%). Aspirin free strategy is as effective as DAPT in reducing MACE with better safety profile in term of bleeding.

     

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)     

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.     

Dual versus triple antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention-meta-analysis and meta-regression

BackgroundAnti-thrombotic regimen in patients on long term anticoagulation requiring coronary intervention remains a clinical challenge.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of triple therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) with dual therapy (P2Y12 inhibitor and anticoagulant) in patients on long-term anticoagulants after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Major bleeding was the primary outcome.ResultsThree observational studies and 3 randomized controlled trials with a total of 6654 patients met our selection criteria. At a mean follow up of 12.5 months major bleeding was lower in dual therapy cohort compared to triple therapy (2.2% vs 5.2%, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44–0.81, P = 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups for major adverse cardiac events (11.8% vs 13.0%, RR 1.03, CI 0.79–1.34, P = 0.85), all-cause mortality (3.9% vs 5.6%, RR 0.94, CI 0.65–1.36, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (3.7% vs 3.9%, RR 1.12, CI 0.83–1.50, P = 0.47), target vessel revascularization (6.8% vs 7.1%, RR 1.12, CI 0.72–1.74, P = 0.60), thromboembolic events (1.3% vs 1.6%, RR 0.95, CI 0.55–1.64, P = 0.85) and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs 1.4%, RR1.36, CI 0.84–2.21, P = 0.21).ConclusionFor patients undergoing PCI and requiring long term anticoagulation, a strategy of P2Y12 inhibitor plus anticoagulant confers a benefit of less major bleeding with no difference in major adverse cardiac events, mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis or thromboembolism compared with triple therapy.     

Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.     

Prospective application of a bleeding and ischemic risks-adjusted antithrombotic protocol in elderly patients revascularized with everolimus-eluting stents: EPIC05-Sierra75 study

OBJECTIVESElderly patients show a higher incidence of ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to investigate outcomes in elderly patients treated with antithrombotic strategy guided by bleeding and ischemic risks after revascularization with last generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES).METHODSProspective multicenter registry including patients over 75 years revascularized with EES and antithrombotic therapy guided by clinical presentation, PCI complexity and PRECISE DAPT score. Co-primary safety endpoints were: (1) composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis and; (2) bleeding (BARC 2-5). Primary efficacy endpoint was target lesion revascularization. A matched group of patients revascularized with current drug-eluting stents and no such tailored antithrombotic therapy was used as control.RESULTSFinally, 1064 patients were included in SIERRA-75 cohort, 80.8 ± 4.2 years, 36.6% women, 71% acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and 53.6% complex PCI. Co-primary safety endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events was met in 6.2%, co-primary safety endpoint of bleeding in 7.8% and primary efficacy endpoint of TKLR in 1.5%. The multivariable adjusted model showed no significant association of the prescribed short/long dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) durations with any endpoint suggesting a well tailored therapy. No stent thrombosis reported in the subgroup with 1-3 months DAPT duration. As compared to control group, bleeding BARC 2-5 was significantly lower in SIERRA-75 group (7.4% vs. 10.2%, P = 0.04) as well as the net safety-efficacy endpoint (14.3% vs. 18.5%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONSIn elderly population, the application of this risks-adjusted antithrombotic protocol after revascularization with last generation EES seems to be associated with an improved prognosis in terms of ischemic and bleeding outcomes.     

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.     

Meta-Analysis of Provisional Versus Systematic Double-Stenting Strategy for Left Main Bifurcation Lesions

ObjectiveWe sought to compare the clinical outcomes with provisional versus double-stenting strategy for left main (LM) bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundDespite two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and several observational reports, the optimal LM bifurcation PCI technique remains controversial.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Clinicaltrials.gov, International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were leveraged for studies comparing PCI bifurcation techniques for LM coronary lesions using second-generation drug eluting stents (DES). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel or lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis.ResultsTwo RCTs and 10 observational studies with 7105 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 42 months (IQR: 25.7). Double stenting was associated with a trend towards higher incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR] 1.20; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.53) compared with provisional stenting. This was mainly driven by higher rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR 1.50; 95 % CI 1.07 to 2.11). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis. On subgroup analysis according to the study type, provisional stenting was associated with lower MACE and TLR in observational studies, but not in RCTs.ConclusionFor LM bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES, a provisional stenting strategy was associated with a trend towards lower incidence of MACE driven by statistically significant lower rates of TLR, compared with systematic double stenting. These differences were primarily driven by observational studies. Further RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.     

Cangrelor for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Cangrelor is a new parenteral adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 receptor inhibitor with rapid, profound and reversible inhibition of platelet activity. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of this new agent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from the inception through April 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cangrelor with control (clopidogrel/placebo) were selected. We used the random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio. The primary efficacy outcome was risk of myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome was TIMI major bleeding at 48 h. Three RCTs included a total of 25,107 participants. Effects of Cangrelor were not different against comparators for myocardial infarction (MI) (Risk ratio [RR] 0.94, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.78–1.13) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.36–1.43). However, cangrelor significantly reduced the risk of ischemia-driven revascularization (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.52–0.98), stent thrombosis (RR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.44–0.82) and Q wave MI (RR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.30–0.92) without causing extra major bleeding (Thrombolysis in Myocardial infarction criteria) and severe or life-threatening bleeding (Global utilization of streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator for occluded coronary arteries criteria). Separate analysis against only clopidogrel also showed similar findings except Q wave MI outcome. Use of cangrelor during PCI might reduce the risk of ischemia-driven revascularization and stent thrombosis, without causing extra major bleeding.     

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.     

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease.BackgroundMultivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy.MethodsA comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionsMultivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.     

VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对评估冠状动脉血运重建患者的临床疗效的meta分析

目的 评价VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对使用氯吡格雷的冠状动脉血运重建患者的长期临床预后的意义。方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆（2014年第3期）、PubMed、EMbase、Highwire、CBM、CNKI等中外生物医学数据库。收集关于对冠状动脉血运重建患者实施VerifyNowP2Y12检测，随访时间为6~12个月的随机对照临床试验以及队列研究，检索日期截止至2014年3月。提取有效数据后采用STATA 12.0软件进行Meta分析。结果 本meta分析纳入14项研究，共计17 643名患者,结果显示:VerifyNow P2Y12检测出的血小板高反应性组的全因病死率高〔RR=1.572,95%CI(1.220,2.025),P=0.000〕，再次心肌梗死发生率高〔RR=1.981,95%CI(1.443,2.720)，P=0.000〕，支架内血栓发生率高〔RR=2.205,95%CI(1.643，2.960)，P=0.000〕，卒中发生率高〔RR=2.288,95%CI(1.195,4.380)，P=0.012〕，而对于靶血管重建,两组结果差异无统计学意义〔RR=1.148,95%CI(0.809,1.629)，P=0.439〕。结论 VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对服用氯吡格雷患者的全因死亡、心肌梗死、支架内血栓、卒中等心血管事件有预测价值。     

Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Large Coronary Artery Revascularization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesWe aim to determine if drug eluting stents (DES) are better than bare-metal stents (BMS) in large coronary artery (diameter ≥ 3 mm) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundDES have become the standard of care for PCI in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the superiority of DES over BMS in large vessel CAD is not clear and previous studies have shown conflicting results.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of PCI with BMS and DES for large vessel CAD were identified from the year 2000 to August 2019. The outcomes were studied individually and included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. Aggregated odds ratio and 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model.ResultsEight RCTs were included (4 with data for first-generation DES, 3 with data for second-generation DES, and 1 with data for both first- and second-generation DES). Compared to BMS, second generation DES had a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (2.4% vs. 3.9%, OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.98, P 0.04), TLR (3.5% vs. 8.6% OR 0.38 95% CI 0.28–0.53, P < 0.001), and MI (2.1% vs. 2.9% OR 0.73 95% CI 0.53–1.0, P 0.05). The difference in all-cause mortality was not seen with first-generation DES.ConclusionNewer DES are associated with a lower mortality, TLR, and MI and thus should be preferred over BMS for large coronary artery PCI.     

Lipoprotein(a) levels are associated with coronary severity but not with outcomes in Chinese patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention

Background and aimsThe association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease is of great interest but still controversial. This study sought to investigate the impact of Lp(a) on coronary severity and long-term outcomes of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and ResultsA total of 6714 consecutive patients who received PCI were enrolled to analyze the association between Lp(a) and coronary severity and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Patients were divided into tertiles according to Lp(a) levels on admission. Coronary severity was evaluated by SYNTAX scoring system. The MACCE included recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality.Significantly, Lp(a) levels were positively associated with coronary severity (p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed Lp(a) was an independent predictor of intermediate to high SYNTAX score. During an average of 874 days follow-up, 755 patients presented with MACCE (11.25%) were reported. The incidence rates of MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke and bleeding were not statistically different among the Lp(a) tertile groups. Furthermore, both Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses found no relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes (p > 0.05).ConclusionLp(a) is an independent predictor of the prevalence of more complex coronary artery lesions (SYNTAX score ≥ 23) in patients with PCI. In addition, our study has shown that Lp(a) has no relationship with long-term cardiovascular outcomes in Chinese patients with PCI.     

Complete Revascularization in Patients With STEMI and Multi-Vessel Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, efficacy of complete vs culprit only revascularization in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains unclear.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane library. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and contrast induced nephropathy. Estimates were calculated as random effects hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsTwelve trials with 7592 patients were included. There was a significantly lower risk of MACE [HR 0.61; 95% CI (0.43–0.60); p = 0.0009; I² = 72%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.74; 95% CI (0.56–0.99); p = 0.04; I² = 2%], and repeat revascularization [HR 0.43; 95% CI (0.31–0.59); p < 0.00001; I² = 67%] in patients treated with complete compared with culprit-only revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MI [HR 0.77; 95% CI (0.52–1.12); p = 0.17; I² = 49%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.86; 95% CI (0.65–1.13); p = 0.28; I² = 14%], heart failure [HR 0.82 95% CI (0.51–1.32); p = 0.42; I² = 26%], major bleeding [HR 1.07; 95% CI (0.66–1.75); p = 0.78; I² = 25%], stroke [HR 0.67; 95% CI (0.24–1.89); p = 0.45; I² = 54%], or contrast induced nephropathy, although higher contrast volumes were used in the complete revascularization group [HR 1.22; 95% CI (0.78–1.92); p = 0.39; I² = 0%].ConclusionComplete revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, and repeat revascularization compared with culprit-only revascularization. These results suggest complete revascularization with PCI following STEMI and multivessel disease should be considered.