Use and outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome in patients with chronic kidney disease: insights from the Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study (COAPT)

Antiplatelet strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome and chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Patients with both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) face heightened risks of adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding. An optimal antiplatelet strategy for this patient population is needed.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate comparative advantages of clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor in the choice of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategies for patients with ACS combined with CKD, while also exploring the appropriate duration of DAPT in the presence of CKD. Relevant studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major bleeding. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1, and STATA 14 was used to assess publication bias. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024593764).

Results

Six studies involving 9,947 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99; P = 0.04) and stroke (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45-0.96; P = 0.03) in patients receiving DAPT. No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality, major bleeding, cardiovascular death, or acute myocardial infarction. Three studies on DAPT duration showed a consistent trend, indicating that shortening DAPT duration did not benefit patients.

Conclusions

In patients with ACS combined with CKD, ticagrelor-based DAPT has advantages over clopidogrel-based DAPT, which is associated with a lower incidence of MACE. And shortening the duration of DAPT does not improve clinical outcomes.

Outcomes of patients with cerebral microbleeds undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and dual antiplatelet therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are predictive of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). However, the risk of ICH in patients with CMBs who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) while receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a study on 329 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI and were evaluated using a 3T MRI scanner. Based on T2*-weighted imaging, patients were classified into three groups: no CMBs, < 5 CMBs, or ≥ 5 CMBs. We determined the occurrence of ICH during follow-up.

RESULTS

At least 1 CMB was found in 109 (33%) patients. The mean number of CMBs per patient was 2.9 ± 3.6. Among the 109 patients with CMBs, 16 (15%) had ≥ 5 CMBs. Coronary stent implantation was performed in 321 patients (98%). DAPT was prescribed for 325 patients (99%). During a mean follow-up period of 2.3 years (interquartile range, 1.9-2.5 years), ICH occurred in one patient (1.1%) with four CMBs. There were no significant differences in the incidence of ICH (0% vs. 1.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.28). However, the rate of DAPT at 6 months of follow-up was significantly lower in patients with ≥ 5 CMBs than in patients with no CMBs or < 5 CMBs (89% vs. 91% vs. 66%, p = 0.026). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in systemic blood pressure during follow-up (123 ± 16 vs. 125 ± 16 vs. 118 ± 11 mmHg; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSION

Although a substantial number of patients who underwent PCI had cerebral microbleeds, at approximately two years of follow-up, intracerebral hemorrhage was very rare in our study population.

Medical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease patients are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality among this population. In addition, chronic kidney disease is a major risk factor for the development of coronary artery disease and is widely regarded as a coronary artery disease risk equivalent. Medical therapy is the cornerstone of coronary artery disease management in the general population. However, there are few trials to guide medical therapy of coronary artery disease in chronic kidney disease, with most data extrapolated from clinical trials of mainly non-chronic kidney disease patients, which were not adequately powered to evaluate this subgroup. There is some evidence to suggest that the efficacy of certain therapies such as aspirin and statins is attenuated with declining estimated glomerular filtration rate, with questionable benefit among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Furthermore, chronic kidney disease and ESRD patients are at higher risk of potential side effects with therapy, which may limit their use. In this review, we summarize the available evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of medical therapy of coronary artery disease in chronic kidney disease and ESRD patients. We also discuss the data on new emerging therapies, including PCSK9i, SGLT2i, GLP1 receptor agonists, and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, which show promise at reducing risk of cardiovascular events in the chronic kidney disease population and may offer additional treatment options. Overall, dedicated studies directly evaluating chronic kidney disease patients, particularly those with advanced chronic kidney disease and ESRD, are greatly needed to establish the optimal medical therapy for coronary artery disease and improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Thrombotic risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes discharged on prasugrel or clopidogrel: results from the PROMETHEUS study

AIMS

Based on recent clinical data, the 2020 ESC guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) suggest to tailor antithrombotic strategy on individual thrombotic risk. Nonetheless, prevalence and prognostic impact of the high thrombotic risk (HTR) criteria proposed are yet to be described. In this analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry, we assessed prevalence and prognostic impact of HTR, defined according to the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, and if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel vary with thrombotic risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PROMETHEUS was a multicentre prospective study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were at HTR if presenting with one clinical plus one procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization, at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with propensity score stratification and multivariable Cox regression. Among 16 065 patients, 4293 (26.7%) were at HTR and 11 772 (73.3%) at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. The HTR conferred increased incidence of MACE (23.3 vs. 13.6%, HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71-2.00, P < 0.001) and its single components. Prasugrel was prescribed in patients with less comorbidities and risk factors and was associated with reduced risk of MACE (HTR: adjHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02; low-to-moderate risk: adjHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88; pinteraction = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

High thrombotic risk, as defined by the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, is highly prevalent among ACS patients undergoing PCI. The HTR definition had a strong prognostic impact, as it successfully identified patients at increased 1 year risk of ischaemic events.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel as Antiplatelet Agents in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The worldwide prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has significantly increased in the past decades. Scientific reports have shown CKD to be an enhancing risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of premature death in patients with CKD. Clinical practice guidelines are ambiguous in view of the use of antiplatelet drugs in patients with CKD because patients with moderate-to-severe CKD were often excluded from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically assess the adverse cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes that were observed with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel use in patients with CKD and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Web of Science, Google Scholar, http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Cochrane database, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were carefully searched for English-based articles comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with CKD. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the endpoints in this study. The latest version of the RevMan software (version 5.4) was used to analyze the data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data post analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 15,664 participants were included in this analysis, whereby 2456 CKD participants were assigned to ticagrelor and 13,208 CKD participants were assigned to clopidogrel. Our current analysis showed that major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; P = 0.09), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.57- 1.18; P = 0.29), cardiovascular death (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.23; P = 0.35), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.70-1.07; P = 0.19), ischemic stroke (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; P = 0.18), and hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.99; P = 0.91) were not significantly different in CKD patients who were treated with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI)-defined minor (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.52-1.53; P = 0.68) and TIMI major bleeding (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.69-1.76; P = 0.67) were also not significantly different. However, bleeding defined according to the academic research consortium (BARC) bleeding type 1 or 2 (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.13-3.37; P = 0.02) and BARC bleeding type 3 or 5 (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.17-2.48; P = 0.006) were significantly higher with ticagrelor.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with clopidogrel, even though ticagrelor was not associated with higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in these patients with CKD, it was associated with significantly higher BARC bleeding. Therefore, the safety outcomes of ticagrelor still require further evaluation in patients with CKD. Nevertheless, this hypothesis should only be confirmed with more powerful results that could usually only be achieved using large-scale randomized trials.