Meta-Analysis of Short vs. Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and Role of Continuation with either Aspirin or a P2Y12 Inhibitor Thereafter

Aim: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is an ongoing debate and novel data has emerged. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess outcomes of short vs. control DAPT duration. In addition, the role of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after DAPT with either aspirin or P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy was analyzed. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing ≤ 3 months with ≥ 6 months DAPT after DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding. In addition, we performed an analysis on studies who continued with either aspirin or P2Y₁₂ monotherapy after DAPT. Results: 9 RCTs comprising 41,864 patients were included and we analyzed a short DAPT duration of median 1.5 months vs. 12.1 months in the control group. The risk for ST was similar with short vs. control DAPT duration (0.5 vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio 1.17[95% CI 0.89-1.54];p=0.26). Bleeding was significantly reduced with short vs. control DAPT duration (1.9 vs. 3.0%; 0.65[0.54-0.77];p＜0.0001). ST was not different between short vs. control DAPT duration in the analysis of the 4 RCTs who continued with aspirin after DAPT and the 5 P2Y₁₂ RCTs, respectively, and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.861). Bleeding was also reduced with short vs. control DAPT in both the aspirin (1.2 vs. 1.7%; 0.71[0.51-0.99];p=0.04) and P2Y₁₂ inhibitor studies (2.1 vs. 3.4%; 0.62[0.47-0.80];p=0.0003) and no heterogeneity was detected (p=0.515). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows that short DAPT ≤ 3 months followed by SAPT reduces bleeding and is not associated with an increase in ST. The results were consistent within the aspirin and P2Y₁₂ SAPT studies.     

Cilostazol combined with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors: A substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation

BackgroundCilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor has been used as a substitute regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation on a small scale. Its exact impact on platelet functions and clinical benefits of aspirin‐intolerant patients is unknown.HypothesisCilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors could be used as a substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation.MethodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort trial, patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary stent implantation were assigned to the cilostazol group (cilostazol plus P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors), based on aspirin intolerance criteria, or the aspirin group (aspirin plus P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors). Platelet PAC‐1, CD62p, and vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP‐P) were detected by flow cytometry. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all‐cause death, acute myocardial infarction, emerging arrhythmia, nonfatal stroke, and heart failure. The secondary endpoints were the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding events.ResultsOne hundred and fifty‐four aspirin‐intolerant percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients and 154 matched aspirin‐tolerant patients from a total of 2059 percutaneous coronary stent implantation patients were enrolled. The relative activation level of PAC‐1, CD62p, and platelet reaction index reflected by the VASP‐P test were similar in the two groups (p > .05). After 12 months of follow‐up, the incidence of all‐cause death was 1.9% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (risk ratio [RR], 1.500; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.254–8.852; p = 1.000); the incidence of acute myocardial infarction was 0.6% in the cilostazol group and 1.3% in the aspirin group (RR, 0.500; 95% CI, 0.046–5.457; p = 1.000). No significant difference was seen in other MACCE events, or in any types of BARC bleeding events.ConclusionsCilostazol combined with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors was not inferior to aspirin‐based standard therapy and could be used as a reasonable substitute antiplatelet regimen for aspirin‐intolerant patients undergoing percutaneous coronary stent implantation, but again with limitations, which required a larger sample and longer follow‐up to confirm its efficacy.     

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.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended as adjuncts to fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the role of switching to ticagrelor within 24 h of fibrinolytics compared with clopidogrel continuation in this setting is uncertain. Hence, we conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with STEMI. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of ticagrelor post-fibrinolysis were identified. We included 3 RCTs with 3999 total patients for our meta-analysis. The results showed similar short-term clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with regard to rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type?≥?2 bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.56–1.60; P?=?0.83), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49–1.52; P?=?0.62), mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.53–1.59; P?=?0.77), myocardial infarction (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.43–1.36; P?=?0.36), and stroke (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.73; P?=?0.82). Our results demonstrate that in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, switching to ticagrelor was associated with similar bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel continuation.     

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.     

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Short Course of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundGuidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following drug-eluting stent (DES) placement for ≥12 months in acute coronary syndrome or 6 months in stable coronary artery disease. However, with the advent of newer-generation stents, the optimal duration of DAPT to balance bleeding and thrombotic risks has been debated.ObjectivesWe aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in short-duration group (SDG) vs. standard treatment group (STG) course of DAPT in patients undergoing PCI.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for RCTs of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES placement who received short (≤ 3 months) vs. standard DAPT course (≥12 months) and were followed for ≥12-months. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke) were the primary outcome. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects model.ResultsA total of 20,706 patients (10,344 in the SDG and 10,362 in the STG) were analysed from four studies. There was no significant difference observed for MACE (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81–1.08, P = .92, I² = 0%) myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. However, lower rates of major bleeding were noted in the SDG (1.20 vs. 1.80%; OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37–0.99; P = .04; I² = 71%) albeit with increased heterogeneity.ConclusionA short duration of DAPT followed by P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy was comparable to 12 months of DAPT with respect to MACE and thrombotic events, with lower rates of major bleeding events in select group of patients undergoing PCI. More data is needed to assess efficacy in patients with complex lesions and high risk ACS population including those with STEMI presentation.     

Aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on diabetic patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsThe publication of new trials brought additional data to the controversial topic of aspirin use in diabetic patients for primary prevention. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review all randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical impact of aspirin in this setting.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of aspirin in patients with diabetes in primary prevention, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (November/2018). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A meta-analysis was performed deriving risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAll-cause mortality was not significantly reduced with RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.90–1.03; 7RCT; 27,595 patients). Regarding MACE, there was an 8% risk reduction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.999; I² = 0%; 8RCT; 29,814 patients). The risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10–1.53; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients), and major GI bleeding (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients) were significantly increased.The risks of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation were not significantly different from control arm.ConclusionsAspirin use among diabetic patients in primary prevention appears was associated with increased risk of major bleeding, a modest decrease of MACE and lack of mortality benefit.     

Antiplatelet therapy for atherothrombotic disease: How can we improve the outcomes?

Platelets play a key role in hemostasis but are also responsible for the formation of pathogenic thrombi underlying the acute clinical manifestations of vascular atherothrombotic disease. Platelets are activated by multiple pathways, including adenosine diphosphate (ADP), thromboxane A₂ (TXA₂), and thrombin, ultimately leading to formation of platelet-rich thrombi that occlude the arterial lumen, resulting in ischemia and cardiovascular events. Current oral antiplatelet agents inhibit the TXA₂ (aspirin [ASA]) and ADP platelet activation pathways (P2Y₁₂ ADP receptor antagonists) and have demonstrated clinical efficacy for the reduction of morbidity and mortality in patients with atherothrombotic disease. However, these agents are associated with residual risk for thrombotic events, bleeding risk, and variability in response. Thus, there is a strong clinical need for novel antiplatelet therapies that decrease the risk of thrombotic events without exposing patients to increased risk of bleeding. This review describes the clinical safety and efficacy of ASA and P2Y₁₂ ADP receptor antagonists, the limitations of current antiplatelet therapy, and novel therapies in development, including newer P2Y₁₂ ADP receptor antagonists and protease-activated receptor (PAR-1) inhibitors.     

Effect of aspirin on mortality in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Objective

The lack of a mortality benefit of aspirin in prior meta-analyses of primary prevention trials of cardiovascular disease has contributed to uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks of aspirin in primary prevention. We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of aspirin to obtain best estimates of the effect of aspirin on mortality in primary prevention.

Methods

Eligible articles were identified by searches of electronic databases and reference lists. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Data were pooled from individual trials using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, and results are presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 100,076 participants were included. Aspirin reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-1.00), myocardial infarction (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00), ischemic stroke (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98), and the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94), but did not reduce cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.09). Aspirin increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.82), major bleeding (RR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.41-1.95), and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.62). A lack of availability of patient-level data precluded exploration of benefits and risks of aspirin in key subgroups.

Conclusion

Aspirin prevents deaths, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke, and increases hemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding when used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events of low-dose aspirin and clopidogrel in randomized controlled trials

Purpose

We performed a systematic review to define the relative and absolute risk of clinically relevant adverse events with the antiplatelet agents, aspirin and clopidogrel.

Materials and methods

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of low-dose aspirin (75-325 mg/dayay) or clopidogrel administered for cardiovascular prophylaxis. Relative risks (RR) were determined by meta-analysis of 22 trials for aspirin versus placebo and from single studies for aspirin versus clopidogrel, aspirin versus aspirin/clopidogrel, and clopidogrel versus aspirin/clopidogrel. Absolute risk increase was calculated by multiplying RR increase by the pooled weighted incidence of the control.

Results

Aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR = 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.08), major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (RR = 2.07; 95% CI, 1.61-2.66), and intracranial bleeding (RR = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.06-5.99) versus placebo. No difference between 75-162.5 mg/day and >162.5-325 mg/day aspirin versus placebo was seen. The absolute annual increases attributable to aspirin were major bleeding: 0.13% (95% CI, 0.08-0.20); major GI bleeding: 0.12% (95% CI, 0.07-0.19), intracranial bleeding: 0.03% (95% CI, 0.01-0.08). No study compared clopidogrel with placebo. One study showed increased major GI bleeding (but not non-GI bleeding endpoints) with aspirin versus clopidogrel (RR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.00-2.10). The absolute annual increase was 0.12% (95% CI, 0.00-0.28).

Conclusions

Low-dose aspirin increases the risk of major bleeding by ∼70%, but the absolute increase is modest: 769 patients (95% CI, 500-1250) need to be treated with aspirin to cause one additional major bleeding episode annually. Compared with clopidogrel, aspirin increases the risk of GI bleeding but not other bleeding; however, 883 patients (95% CI, 357-∞) would need to be treated with clopidogrel versus aspirin to prevent one major GI bleeding episode annually at a cost of over 1 million dollars.     

Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes of Potent P2Y12 Inhibitor Antiplatelet Agents Versus Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundThe role of P2Y12 inhibition in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been well described in literature. However, the agent of choice is less clear among elderly patients (>65 years) who are at increased risk of bleeding. This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of potent P2Y12 inhibitors vs. clopidogrel in this population.Methods and resultsPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov (inception through February 25, 2021) were searched for randomized studies comparing potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors to clopidogrel in elderly population presenting with ACS. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed and p<0.05 was considered significant. Eight randomized studies with a total 10,081 patients were included in the final analysis. At mean follow up of 26 months, there were no significant differences between potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors and clopidogrel in MACE (HR 0.97, 95% CI [0.82–1.15]; p=0.73), all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI [0.75–1.10]; p=1.00), MI (HR 0.95, 95% CI [0.78–1.17]; p=0.64), and stroke (HR 1.24, 95% CI [0.82–1.86]; p=0.31). However, potent oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.68–0.98]; p=0.03), and an increase in major bleeding events (HR 1.32, 95% CI [1.09–1.59]; p<0.01).ConclusionIn comparison with clopidogrel, the use of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors in elderly patients with ACS, is associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular mortality with increased risk of bleeding events and no significant change in MACE outcomes.     

Cangrelor infusion is associated with an increased risk for bleeding: Meta-analysis of randomized trials

Context

Aggressive antiplatelet strategies unquestionably cause extra hemorrhagic risks. Bleeding episodes are associated with poor outcomes including increased mortality. However, lack of uniform reporting and adjudication of bleeding events might prevent objective evaluation of the efficacy/safety profile of antithrombotic agents.

Objective

We analyzed the bleeding rates by several previously used bleeding scales (TIMI, GUSTO, ACUITY, and BARC) after cangrelor in recent head-to-head randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

Results

Data for meta-analyses were pooled from 3 RCTs (CHAMPION-PLATFORM, CHAMPION-PCI and CHAMPION-PHOENIX) including 25,106 patients. In addition, the bleeding risks were also assessed from the small (n = 210) BRIDGE RCT. Cangrelor caused a significantly increased risk for major bleeding at 48 h according to the ACUITY scale (RR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.32–1.72, p < 0.00001); however, this impact was less prominent according to less sensitive bleeding scales (GUSTO severe: RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.70–2.11, p = 0.49; TIMI major: RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.59–1.68, p = 0.99). There was also an obvious trend towards an increased risk for any transfusions (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.97–1.77, p = 0.08) and TIMI major + minor bleeding events (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.96–1.76, p = 0.09).

Conclusions

Cangrelor on top of aspirin or/and clopidogrel increases the risk for early bleeding events after PCI; however, it largely depends on the bleeding definition used, and how this excess risk of bleeding was captured. The bleeding hazard needs to be verified in the ongoing FDA secondary cangrelor review.     

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)     

Combination antiplatelet treatment in coronary artery disease patients: A necessary evil or an overzealous practice?

In seeking to improve care in coronary artery disease patients, further platelet inhibition has been occasionally applied beyond that provided by aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist. This review aims to offer insights about the rationale, the efficacy and safety of combination antiplatelet therapy, involving three or more agents. Overall, the use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors did not significantly modify the treatment effect of different antiplatelet strategies, including double vs standard clopidogrel, prasugrel vs clopidogrel, ticagrelor vs clopidogrel, cangrelor vs clopidogrel, and vorapaxar vs placebo. With the caveat that the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor was not randomized, adding such an agent to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist appears to carry a significantly increased bleeding potential. Moreover, adding vorapaxar to aspirin- and clopidogrel-treated patients is associated with more bleeding events, while the bleeding potential is further exacerbated in cases of quadruplicate antiplatelet treatment including aspirin, clopidogrel, vorapaxar, and a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. In ST-segment elevation, myocardial infarction patients’ administration of an intravenous antiplatelet agent (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor or cangrelor), in addition to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist, efficiently bridges the pharmacodynamic gap of oral agents. Cilostazol on top of aspirin and clopidogrel appears to be safe, although of questionable clinical benefit. In conclusion, combination antiplatelet therapy should be reserved only for selected cases and following thoughtful consideration of the associated risk/benefit ratio.     

Tratamiento antiagregante de muy corta duración tras la ICP y nuevos SLF: metanálisis de 5 estudios aleatorizados

Introduction and objectivesVery early (1-3 months) discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been recently proposed in percutaneous coronary interventions with modern drug-eluting stents (DES), with contrasting results. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic impact of very short DAPT regimens vs the standard 12-month regimen in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with new DES.MethodsLiterature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT). The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding events. A prespecified analysis was conducted according to the long-term antiplatelet agent.ResultsWe included 5 RCTs, with a total of 30 621 patients; 49.97% were randomized to very short (1-3 months) DAPT, followed by aspirin or P2Y₁₂I monotherapy. Shorter DAPT duration significantly reduced the rate of major bleeding (2% vs 3.1%, OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.46-0.84; P = .002; Phet = .02), but did not significantly condition overall mortality (1.3% vs 2%, OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.73-1.29; P = .84; Phet = .18). The reduction in bleeding events was even more significant in trials randomizing event-free patients at the time of DAPT discontinuation. The occurrence of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis was similar between shorter vs standard 12-month DAPT.ConclusionsBased on the current meta-analysis, a very short (1-3 months) period is associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding compared with the standard 12-month therapy, with no increase in major ischemic events and comparable survival.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en     

Stroke Event Rates and the Optimal Antithrombotic Choice of Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The risks of stroke or systemic embolism and major bleeding are considered similar between paroxysmal and sustained atrial fibrillation (AF), and warfarin has demonstrated superior efficacy to aspirin, irrespective of the AF type. However, with the advent of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and antiplatelet agents, the optimal antithrombotic prophylaxis for paroxysmal AF remains unclear.We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and China Biology Medicine up to October week 1, 2015. Randomized controlled trials of AF patients assigned to NOACs, warfarin, or antiplatelets, with reports of outcomes stratified by the AF type, were included. A fixed-effects model was used if no statistically significant heterogeneity was indicated; otherwise, a random-effects model was used.Six studies of 69,990 nonvalvular AF patients with ≥1 risk factor for stroke were included. Postantithrombotic treatment, paroxysmal AF patients showed lower risks of stroke (risk ratio [RR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.87), stroke or systemic embolism (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63–0.86), and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67–0.83), while the major bleeding risk was comparable (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.85–1.08). We were unable to detect the superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelets for paroxysmal AF (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.43–1.23), while it was more effective than antiplatelets for sustained AF (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.33–0.54). NOACs showed superior efficacy over warfarin and trended to show reduced major bleeding irrespective of the AF type.The AF type is a predictor for thromboembolism, and might be helpful in stroke risk stratification model in combination with other risk factors. With the appearance of novel anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents, the best antithrombotic choice for paroxysmal AF needs further exploration.