Clinical outcome of patients with stable ischaemic heart disease as compared to those with acute coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention

Aims: To compare clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and those with stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD) stratified by anatomic disease complexity (SYNTAX score). Methods and results: Patient-level data from three all-comers PCI trials were pooled. Patients (n=4,204) were stratified by clinical presentation (i.e., ACS or SIHD) and by SYNTAX score (i.e., lowest vs. two highest tertiles). The major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates of patients with low-risk SIHD (n=531) and high-risk SIHD (n=1,066) were compared with ACS patients (n=2,607), respectively. At two years, the risk of MACE was higher for high-risk SIHD patients (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.08-1.66) and lower for low-risk SIHD patients (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87) compared with ACS patients, respectively. This difference between high-risk SIHD patients and ACS patients was primarily driven by a higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.21-2.21), while there was no difference for cardiac death (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.49-1.21) or target lesion revascularisation (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91-1.62). Conclusions: In this pooled analysis, the majority of patients undergoing PCI for SIHD (i.e., with SYNTAX score >8) had a higher risk of MACE than patients with ACS. Trial registration: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT00297661 (Sirtax), NCT00389220 (Leaders), NCT00114972 (Resolute-AC).

Quality of care after acute coronary syndromes in a prospective cohort with reasons for non-prescription of recommended medications

BACKGROUND Adherence to guidelines is associated with improved outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Clinical registries developed to assess quality of care at discharge often do not collect the reasons for non-prescription for proven efficacious preventive medication in Continental Europe. In a prospective cohort of patients hospitalized for an ACS, we aimed at measuring the rate of recommended treatment at discharge, using pre-specified quality indicators recommended in cardiologic guidelines and including systematic collection of reasons for non-prescription for preventive medications. METHODS In a prospective cohort with 1260 patients hospitalized for ACS, we measured the rate of recommended treatment at discharge in 4 academic centers in Switzerland. Performance measures for medication at discharge were pre-specified according to guidelines, systematically collected for all patients and included in a centralized database. RESULTS Six hundred and eighty eight patients(54.6%) were discharged with a main diagnosis of STEMI, 491(39%) of NSTEMI and 81(6.4%) of unstable angina. Mean age was 64 years and 21.3% were women. 94.6% were prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers at discharge when only considering raw prescription rates, but increased to 99.5% when including reasons non-prescription. For statins, rates increased from 98% to 98.6% when including reasons for non-prescription and for beta-blockers, from 82% to 93%. For aspirin, rates further increased from 99.4% to 100% and from to 99.8% to 100% for P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS We found a very high adherence to ACS guidelines for drug prescriptions at discharge when including reasons for non-prescription to drug therapy. For beta-blockers, prescription rates were suboptimal, even after taking into account reason for non-prescription. In an era of improving quality of care to achieve 100% prescription rates at discharge unless contra-indicated, pre-specification of reasons for non-prescription for cardiovascular preventive medication permits to identify remaining gaps in quality of care at discharge.

Safety profile of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

The association between older age and receipt of care and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes : a cohort study of the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP)

Peer reviewed

Platelet nitric oxide responsiveness - A novel prognostic marker in acute coronary syndromes

Objectives - Nitric oxide (NO) is critically important in the regulation of vascular tone and the inhibition of platelet aggregation. We have shown previously that patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or stable angina pectoris have impaired platelet responses to NO donors when compared with normal subjects. We tested the hypotheses that platelet hyporesponsiveness to NO is a predictor of (1) cardiovascular readmission and/or death and (2) all-cause mortality in patients with ACS (unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction). Methods and Results - Patients (n = 51) with ACS had evaluation of platelet aggregation within 24 hours of coronary care unit admission using impedance aggregometry. Patients were categorized as having normal (>= 32% inhibition of ADP-induced aggregation with the NO donor sodium nitroprusside; 10 mu mol/L; n = 18) or impaired (>= 32% inhibition of ADP-induced aggregation; n = 33) NO responses. We then compared the incidence of cardiovascular readmission and death during a median of 7 years of follow-up in these 2 groups. Using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, sex, index event, postdischarge medical treatment, revascularization status, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, concurrent disease states, and cardiac risk factors, impaired NO responsiveness was associated with an increased risk of the combination of cardiovascular readmission and/or death (relative risk, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.03 to 7.10; P = 0.041) and all-cause mortality (relative risk, 6.3; 95% CI, 1.09 to 36.7; P = 0.033). Conclusions - Impaired platelet NO responsiveness is a novel, independent predictor of increased mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with high-risk ACS.

Cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with previous acute coronary syndromes aged 65 to 74 years compared with younger patients: Results from the LIPID study

Background We compared cost-effectiveness of pravastatin in a placebo-controlled trial in 5500 younger (31-64 years) and 3514 older patients (65-74 years) with previous acute coronary syndromes. Methods Hospitalizations and long-term medication within the 6 years of the trial were estimated in all patients. Drug dosage, nursing home, and ambulatory care costs were estimated from substudies. Incremental costs per life saved of pravastatin relative to placebo were estimated from treatment effects and resource use. Results Over 6 years, pravastatin reduced all-cause mortality by 4.3% in the older patients and by 2.3% in the younger patients. Older patients assigned pravastatin had marginally lower cost of pravastatin and other medication over 6 years (A$4442 vs A$4637), but greater cost offsets (A$2061 vs. A$897) from lower rates of hospitalizations. The incremental cost per life saved with pravastatin was A$55500 in the old and A$167200 in the young. Assuming no treatment effect beyond the study period, the life expectancy to age 82 years of additional survivors was 9.1 years in the older and. 17.3 years in the younger. Estimated additional life-years saved from pravastatin therapy were 0.39 years for older and 0.40 years for younger patients. Incremental costs per life-year saved were A$7581 in the older and A$1.4944 in the younger, if discounted at 5% per annum. Conclusions Pravastatin therapy was more cost-effective among older than younger patients, because of their higher baseline risk and greater cost offsets, despite their shorter life expectancy.