Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

Antiplatelet therapy Drug-eluting stent Percutaneous coronary intervention Urgent revascularization

Journal

Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society

ISSN: 1861-0692

Titre abrégé: Clin Res Cardiol

Pays: Germany

ID NLM: 101264123

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 May 2024

Historique:

received: 26 02 2024

accepted: 25 04 2024

medline: 14 5 2024

pubmed: 14 5 2024

entrez: 13 5 2024

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

METHODS AND RESULTS RESULTS

This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546).

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s00392-024-02454-x PMID: 38740722

pubmed: 38740722

doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02454-x

pii: 10.1007/s00392-024-02454-x

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J et al (2007) Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med 356(10):1030–1039. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067484

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067484 pubmed: 17296823

Cassese S, Byrne RA, Tada T et al (2014) Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. Heart 100(2):153–159. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304933

doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-304933 pubmed: 24270744

Curtis JP, Schreiner G, Wang Y et al (2009) All-cause readmission and repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(10):903–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.076

doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.04.076 pubmed: 19712799

Stolker JM, Cohen DJ, Kennedy KF et al (2012) Repeat revascularization after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: an evaluation of staged, target lesion, and other unplanned revascularization procedures during the first year. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 5(6):772–782. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.967802

doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.111.967802 pubmed: 23093553

Parasca CA, Head SJ, Milojevic M et al (2016) Incidence, characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: the SYNTAX trial at 5 years. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(24):2493–2507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2016.09.044

doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.09.044 pubmed: 28007201

Coughlan JJ, Aytekin A, Xhepa E et al (2022) Target and non-target vessel related events at 10 years post percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Res Cardiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-01986-4

doi: 10.1007/s00392-022-01986-4 pubmed: 35147767 pmcid: 9242894

Spitaleri G, Moscarella E, Brugaletta S et al (2018) Correlates of non-target vessel-related adverse events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from five-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial. EuroIntervention 13(16):1939–1945. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00608

doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00608 pubmed: 29260713

Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S et al (2022) 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 145(3):e18–e114. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038

doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038 pubmed: 34882435

Schüpke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M et al (2019) Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 381(16):1524–1534. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1908973

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973 pubmed: 31475799

Coughlan JJ, Aytekin A, Lahu S et al (2021) Ticagrelor or prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 6(10):1121–1129. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2228

doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2228 pubmed: 34190967 pmcid: 8246339

Schnorbus B, Daiber A, Jurk K, et al (2020) Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study. Eur Heart J. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz917

Ariotti S, Ortega-Paz L, van Leeuwen M et al (2018) Effects of ticagrelor, prasugrel, or clopidogrel on endothelial function and other vascular biomarkers: a randomized crossover study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(16):1576–1586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.022

doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.022 pubmed: 29805112

Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH et al (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357(20):2001–2015. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0706482

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706482 pubmed: 17982182

Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A et al (2009) Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 361(11):1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0904327

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0904327 pubmed: 19717846

Schulz S, Angiolillo DJ, Antoniucci D et al (2014) Randomized comparison of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and planned invasive strategy–design and rationale of the intracoronary stenting and antithrombotic regimen: rapid early action for coronary treatment (ISAR-REACT) 5 trial. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 7(1):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-013-9527-3

doi: 10.1007/s12265-013-9527-3 pubmed: 24371012

Menichelli M, Neumann FJ, Ndrepepa G et al (2020) Age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes : results from a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 173(6):436–444. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1806

doi: 10.7326/M20-1806 pubmed: 32687741

Garcia-Garcia HM, McFadden EP, Farb A et al (2018) Standardized end point definitions for coronary intervention trials: the academic research consortium-2 consensus document. Circulation 137(24):2635–2650. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029289

doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029289 pubmed: 29891620

Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP (2016) Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation 133(6):601–609. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719

doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719 pubmed: 26858290 pmcid: 4741409

Gray RJ (1988) A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 16(3):1141–1154. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176350951

doi: 10.1214/aos/1176350951

Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):496–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144

doi: 10.1080/01621459.1999.10474144

Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ et al (2011) A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 364(3):226–235. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1002358

doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1002358 pubmed: 21247313

Zellweger MJ, Kaiser C, Jeger R et al (2012) Coronary artery disease progression late after successful stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(9):793–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.024

doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.024 pubmed: 22361397

Erlinge D, Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O et al (2021) Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): a prospective natural history study. Lancet 397(10278):985–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00249-x

doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00249-x pubmed: 33714389

Rampidis G, Rafailidis V, Kouskouras K, et al (2022) Relationship between coronary arterial geometry and the presence and extend of atherosclerotic plaque burden: a review discussing methodology and findings in the era of cardiac computed tomography angiography. Diagnostics (Basel) 12(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12092178

Waksman R, Di Mario C, Torguson R et al (2019) Identification of patients and plaques vulnerable to future coronary events with near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging: a prospective, cohort study. Lancet 394(10209):1629–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31794-5

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31794-5 pubmed: 31570255

Stefanini GG, Alfonso F, Barbato E et al (2020) Management of myocardial revascularisation failure: an expert consensus document of the EAPCI. EuroIntervention 16(11):e875–e890. https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-20-00487

doi: 10.4244/eij-d-20-00487 pubmed: 32597391

Elgendy IY, Ha LD, Elbadawi A et al (2018) Temporal trends in inpatient use of intravascular imaging among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(9):913–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.254

doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.254 pubmed: 29747923

Koskinas KC, Nakamura M, Raber L et al (2018) Current use of intracoronary imaging in interventional practice - results of a European association of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI) and Japanese association of cardiovascular interventions and therapeutics (CVIT) clinical practice survey. EuroIntervention 14(4):e475–e484. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJY18M03_01

doi: 10.4244/EIJY18M03_01 pubmed: 29537966

Palmerini T, Della Riva D, Biondi-Zoccai G et al (2018) Mortality following nonemergent, uncomplicated target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention: an individual patient data pooled analysis of 21 randomized trials and 32,524 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(9):892–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.277

doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.277 pubmed: 29680221

Zanchin T, Temperli F, Karagiannis A et al (2018) Frequency, reasons, and impact of premature ticagrelor discontinuation in patients undergoing coronary revascularization in routine clinical practice: results from the bern percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 11(5):e006132. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006132

doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006132 pubmed: 29748219

Zeymer U, Cully M, Hochadel M (2018) Adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in real life. Results of the REAL-TICA registry. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 4(4):205–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcvp/pvy018

doi: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvy018 pubmed: 29878086

Kirtane AJ, Gupta A, Iyengar S et al (2009) Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents: comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Circulation 119(25):3198–3206. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.826479

doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.826479 pubmed: 19528338