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.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

Prevalence and management of familial hypercholesterolaemia in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS We aimed to assess the prevalence and management of clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS We studied 4778 patients with ACS from a multi-centre cohort study in Switzerland. Based on personal and familial history of premature cardiovascular disease and LDL-cholesterol levels, two validated algorithms for diagnosis of clinical FH were used: the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network algorithm to assess possible (score 3-5 points) or probable/definite FH (>5 points), and the Simon Broome Register algorithm to assess possible FH. At the time of hospitalization for ACS, 1.6% had probable/definite FH [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-2.0%, n = 78] and 17.8% possible FH (95% CI 16.8-18.9%, n = 852), respectively, according to the Dutch Lipid Clinic algorithm. The Simon Broome algorithm identified 5.4% (95% CI 4.8-6.1%, n = 259) patients with possible FH. Among 1451 young patients with premature ACS, the Dutch Lipid Clinic algorithm identified 70 (4.8%, 95% CI 3.8-6.1%) patients with probable/definite FH, and 684 (47.1%, 95% CI 44.6-49.7%) patients had possible FH. Excluding patients with secondary causes of dyslipidaemia such as alcohol consumption, acute renal failure, or hyperglycaemia did not change prevalence. One year after ACS, among 69 survivors with probable/definite FH and available follow-up information, 64.7% were using high-dose statins, 69.0% had decreased LDL-cholesterol from at least 50, and 4.6% had LDL-cholesterol ≤1.8 mmol/L. CONCLUSION A phenotypic diagnosis of possible FH is common in patients hospitalized with ACS, particularly among those with premature ACS. Optimizing long-term lipid treatment of patients with FH after ACS is required.

Prognostic value of PCSK9 levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

AIMS Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) is an emerging target for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia, but the clinical utility of PCSK9 levels to guide treatment is unknown. We aimed to prospectively assess the prognostic value of plasma PCSK9 levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS AND RESULTS Plasma PCSK9 levels were measured in 2030 ACS patients undergoing coronary angiography in a Swiss prospective cohort. At 1 year, the association between PCSK9 tertiles and all-cause death was assessed adjusting for the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) variables, as well as the achievement of LDL cholesterol targets of <1.8 mmol/L. Patients with higher PCSK9 levels at angiography were more likely to have clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia (rate ratio, RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.09-1.53), be treated with lipid-lowering therapy (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30-1.63), present with longer time interval of chest pain (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09-1.53) and higher C-reactive protein levels (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16-1.30). PCSK9 increased 12-24 h after ACS (374 ± 149 vs. 323 ± 134 ng/mL, P < 0.001). At 1 year follow-up, HRs for upper vs. lower PCSK9-level tertiles were 1.13 (95% CI 0.69-1.85) for all-cause death and remained similar after adjustment for the GRACE score. Patients with higher PCSK9 levels were less likely to reach the recommended LDL cholesterol targets (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION In ACS patients, high initial PCSK9 plasma levels were associated with inflammation in the acute phase and hypercholesterolaemia, but did not predict mortality at 1 year.

Expected impact of applying new 2013 AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines criteria on the recommended lipid target achievement after acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines on the treatment of cholesterol advised to tailor high-intensity statin after ACS, while previous ATP-III recommended titration of statin to reach low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. We simulated the impact of this change of paradigm on the achievement of recommended targets. METHODS Among a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients hospitalized for ACS from 2009 to 2012 at four Swiss university hospitals, we analyzed 1602 patients who survived one year after recruitment. Targets based on the previous guidelines approach was defined as (1) achievement of LDL-C target < 1.8 mmol/l, (2) reduction of LDL-C ≥ 50% or (3) intensification of statin in patients who did not reach LDL-C targets. Targets based on the 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines approach was defined as the maximization of statin therapy at high-intensity in patients aged ≤75 years and moderate- or high-intensity statin in patients >75 years. RESULTS 1578 (99%) patients were prescribed statin at discharge, with 1120 (70%) at high-intensity. 1507 patients (94%) reported taking statin at one year, with 909 (57%) at high-intensity. Among 482 patients discharged with sub-maximal statin, intensification of statin was only observed in 109 patients (23%). 773 (47%) patients reached the previous LDL-C targets, while 1014 (63%) reached the 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines targetsone year after ACS (p value < 0.001). CONCLUSION The application of the new 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines criteria would substantially increase the proportion of patients achieving recommended lipid targets one year after ACS. Clinical trial number, NCT01075868.

Reasons for discontinuation of recommended therapies according to the patients after acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND The prescription of recommended medical therapies is a key factor to improve prognosis after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, reasons for cardiovascular therapies discontinuation after hospital discharge are poorly reported in previous studies. METHODS We enrolled 3055 consecutive patients hospitalized with a main diagnosis of ACS in four Swiss university hospitals with a prospective one-year follow-up. We assessed the self-reported use of recommended therapies and the reasons for medication discontinuation according to the patient interview performed at one-year follow-up. RESULTS 3014 (99.3%) patients were discharged with aspirin, 2983 (98.4%) with statin, 2464 (81.2%) with beta-blocker, 2738 (90.3%) with ACE inhibitors/ARB and 2597 (100%) with P2Y12 inhibitors if treated with coronary stent. At the one-year follow-up, the discontinuation percentages were 2.9% for aspirin, 6.6% for statin, 11.6% for beta-blocker, 15.1% for ACE inhibitor/ARB and 17.8% for P2Y12 inhibitors. Most patients reported having discontinued their medication based on their physicians' decision: 64 (2.1%) for aspirin, 82 (2.7%) for statin, 212 (8.6%) for beta-blocker, 251 (9.1% for ACE inhibitor/ARB) and 293 (11.4%) for P2Y12 inhibitors, while side effect, perception that medication was unnecessary and medication costs were uncommon reported reasons (<2%) according to the patients. CONCLUSIONS Discontinuation of recommended therapies after ACS differs according the class of medication with the lowest percentages for aspirin. According to patients, most stopped their cardiovascular medication based on their physician's decision, while spontaneous discontinuation was infrequent.

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