Efficacy and Safety of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors on Top of Ticagrelor in STEMI: A Subanalysis of the ATLANTIC Trial

Safety and effectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: insights from the SPUM-ACS study

AIMS

Data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use in real-world acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients following the introduction of potent P2Y12 inhibitors and newer-generation stents are scant. Here, we aimed to assess the utilization, effectiveness, and safety of GPI in a large prospective multicentre cohort of contemporary ACS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SPUM-ACS prospectively recruited patients presenting with ACS between 2009 and 2017. The primary endpoint of the present study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke at 1 year. Secondary endpoints were defined as any bleeding events, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE). A total of 4395 ACS patients were included in the analysis. GPI-treated patients had more total coronary artery occlusion (56% vs. 35%, P < 0.001) and thrombus (60% vs. 35%, P < 0.001) at angiography. Among the propensity score-matched (PSM) population (1992 patients equally split into two groups), GPI-treated patients showed lower risk of MACE [PSM adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.49-0.99], but a higher risk of any (PSM adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-1.99) and major bleedings (PSM adjusted HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.09-2.76), resulting in a neutral effect on NACE (PSM adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17). These results remained consistent across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving potent P2Y12 inhibitors, we observed a reduced risk of MACE and an increased risk of major bleedings at 1 year in patients treated with GPI. Although the routine use of GPI is currently not recommended, they might be considered in selected patients following a personalized balancing between ischaemic and bleeding risks.

Amplified inhibition of atherosclerotic plaque-induced platelet activation by glenzocimab with dual antiplatelet therapy

BACKGROUND

Aspirin and platelet P2Y12 inhibitors, such as ticagrelor, suboptimally inhibit microvascular thrombosis during ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors may further inhibit this but cause excessive bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether combination of glenzocimab, a GPVI inhibitor, with aspirin and ticagrelor provides additional antithrombotic effects, as GPVI has a critical role in atherothrombosis but minimal involvement in hemostasis.

METHODS

We investigated the effects of glenzocimab (monoclonal antibody Fab fragment) using blood from healthy donors and patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with aspirin and ticagrelor. Platelets were stimulated with multiple agonists, including atherosclerotic plaque, from patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

RESULTS

Aspirin and ticagrelor partially inhibited atherosclerotic plaque-induced platelet aggregation by 48% compared with control (34 ± 3 vs 65 ± 4 U; P < .001). Plaque-induced platelet aggregation, adhesion, secretion, and activation were critically dependent on GPVI activation. Glenzocimab alone reduced plaque-induced aggregation by 75% compared with control (16 ± 4 vs 65 ± 4 U; P < .001) and by >95% when combined with aspirin and ticagrelor (3 ± 1 vs 65 ± 4 U; P < .001). Glenzocimab reduced platelet aggregation, adhesion, and thrombin generation when added to blood of aspirin- and ticagrelor-treated patients with acute coronary syndrome. Glenzocimab shared several antithrombotic effects with the GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide with less effect on general hemostasis assessed by rotational thromboelastometry. In a murine intravital model of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, genetic depletion of GPVI reduced microvascular thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Addition of glenzocimab to aspirin and ticagrelor enhances platelet inhibition via multiple mechanisms of atherothrombosis. Compared with a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, glenzocimab shares multiple antithrombotic effects, with less inhibition of mechanisms involved in general hemostasis.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: The Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5-10% of cases of myocardial infarction (MI). Whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) are beneficial in these patients is controversial. Our aim is to assess the prognostic impact of GPI use on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with MI and CS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Between October 2010 and December 2019, 27578 acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients were included in the multicenter Portuguese Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes. Of these, 357 with an MI complicated by CS were included in the analysis and grouped based on whether they received GPI therapy (with GPI, n=107 and without GPI, n=250). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included successful PCI and in-hospital reinfarction and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Demographics and cardiovascular risk factors did not differ between groups. ST-elevation MI patients were more likely to receive GPIs (95% vs. 83%, p=0.002). In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (OR 1.80, 95% CI 0.96-3.37). Only age and the use of inotropes or intra-aortic balloon pump were predictors of mortality. Also, no differences between groups were noted for successful PCI (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.62-4.06), reinfarction (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.15-3.90), or major bleeding (OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.75-3.74).

CONCLUSION

The use of GPIs in the context of MI with CS did not significantly impact in-hospital outcomes.

Intracoronary artery retrograde thrombolysis combined with percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with diabetes mellitus: A case report and literature review

Background

The management of a large thrombus burden in patients with acute myocardial infarction and diabetes is still a worldwide problem.

Case presentation

A 74-year-old Chinese woman presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated with diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Angiography revealed massive thrombus formation in the mid-segment of the right coronary artery leading to vascular occlusion. The sheared balloon was placed far from the occlusion segment and urokinase (100,000 u) was administered for intracoronary artery retrograde thrombolysis, and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 blood flow was restored within 7 min. At last, one stent was accurately implanted into the culprit’s vessel. No-reflow, coronary slow flow, and reperfusion arrhythmia were not observed during this process.

Conclusion

Intracoronary artery retrograde thrombolysis (ICART) can be effectively and safely used in patients with STEMI along with diabetes mellitus and hypertension, even if the myocardial infarction exceeds 12 h (REST or named ICART ClinicalTrials.gov number, ChiCTR1900023849).

Antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapies in cardiogenic shock: a critical review of the published literature

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non-acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short-term or long-term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi-organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors use in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients pre-treated with newer P2Y12 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the safety and potential benefit of administrating glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) on top of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND

A number of clinical trials, performed at a time when pretreatment and potent platelet inhibition was not part of routine clinical practice, have documented clinical benefits of GPI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding.

METHODS

We used the data of a prospective, ongoing registry of patients admitted for STEMI in our center. For the purpose of this study only patients presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention and pretreated with new P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor) were included. We compared patients who received GPI with those who did not.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty-four STEMI patients were included in our registry; GPIs were used in 338 patients (41%). GPI patients presented more often with cardiogenic shock and Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade <3. GPI use was not associated with an increase in in-hospital or 3-month mortality. Bleeding endpoints were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that GPI may be used safely in combination with recent P2Y12 inhibitors in STEMI patients in association with modern primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategies (radial access and anticoagulation with enoxaparin) with similar bleeding and mortality rates at hospital discharge and 3-month follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in addition to P2Y12 inhibitors in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial

BACKGROUND

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) are still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), although discussion about its clinical benefit is ongoing.

METHODS

GPI use was analyzed in this subanalysis of the POPular Genetics trial, which randomized STEMI patients to CYP2C19 genotype-guided treatment (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) or standard treatment with ticagrelor/prasugrel. The composite thrombotic endpoint consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, and stroke at 30 days. The combined bleeding endpoint consisted of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major and minor bleeding at 30 days. Univariable and multivariable analyses in addition to a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 2378 patients, of whom 1033 received GPI and 1345 did not, were included. In multivariable analysis, GPI administration was associated with fewer thrombotic events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.55) and MIs (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.73). Furthermore, GPI administration was associated with an increase in bleedings (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.27-3.19), driven by minor bleedings (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.43-3.76), without a significant difference in major bleedings (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.19-2.57). In the PSM analysis, no significant association was found.

CONCLUSION

In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, GPI administration was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events at a cost of an increase in (mostly minor) bleedings in multivariable analysis, while propensity score analysis did not show significant associations.

Tackling the gap in platelet inhibition with oral antiplatelet agents in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Introduction: Oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors represent the mainstay therapy for the prevention of thrombotic complications in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the onset of antiplatelet action of the oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors is affected by their need to be absorbed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract before becoming systemically available.Areas covered: Following oral intake of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, the timeframe required for GI absorption leads to a window of inadequate antiplatelet protection during which patients are at increased thrombotic risk. The onset of action of the oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors is even further delayed in high-risk patients, underscoring the need to define strategies to bridge the gap in platelet inhibitory effects following their intake.Expert opinion: Multiple mechanisms may impair GI absorption leading to a delay in the onset of action of oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors. Several strategies have been tested to overcome the gap in platelet inhibition in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. These include administration of crushed or chewed tablets to improve the dissolution rate and use of opioid receptor antagonists or metoclopramide to counteract impairment of gastric motility induced by opioids. However, intravenous antiplatelet therapies represent the most effective strategy to bridge such gap in platelet inhibition.

Efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been part of the adjuvant treatment of acute coronary syndrome for years. However, real-life data regarding the efficacy and safety of GPIs under the current indications are lacking in the setting of potent platelet inhibition. The objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and pretreated with ticagrelor, and to identify independent predictor factors of efficacy, bleeding and platelet drop. Three hundred sixty-two patients were divided by GPI administered. Clinical, laboratory, angiographic and outcome characteristics were compared. The primary objective was a composite efficacy endpoint (death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke) at 30 days. The secondary objectives were its individual components, safety (bleeding) and the impact on platelet count during hospital stay. The composite efficacy endpoint was similar in the abciximab and tirofiban groups (6.1% vs 7.3%; p = .632). There were also no differences in cardiovascular death (2.5% vs 2.4%; p = .958), nonfatal myocardial infarction (3% vs 4.3%; p = .521) and nonfatal stroke (0.5% vs 1.8%; p = .332). Tirofiban administration was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding (11.6% vs 22%; p = .008) with no differences in BARC ≥ 3b bleeding (3.6 vs 2.5%; p = .760). In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI with ticagrelor, abciximab and tirofiban had similar rates in the composite efficacy endpoint at 30 days. The 30-day bleeding rate was significantly higher in the tirofiban group. Tirofiban administration was an independent predictor of both bleeding and platelet count drop.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Current Evidence and Ongoing Issues Regarding Early and Late Management

A few decades ago, the understanding of the pathophysiological processes involved in the coronary artery thrombus formation has placed anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents at the core of the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Increasingly potent antithrombotic agents have since been evaluated, in various association, timing, or dosage, in numerous randomized controlled trials to interrupt the initial thrombus formation, prevent ischemic complications, and ultimately improve survival. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention, initial parenteral anticoagulation, and dual antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors have become the hallmark of ACS management revolutionizing its prognosis. Despite these many improvements, much more remains to be done to optimize the onset of action of the various antithrombotic therapies, for further treating and preventing thrombotic events without exposing the patients to an unbearable hemorrhagic risk. The availability of various potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors has opened the door for individualized therapeutic strategies based on the clinical setting as well as the ischemic and bleeding risk of the patients, while the added value of aspirin has been recently challenged. The strategy of dual-pathway inhibition with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant has brought promising results for the early and late management of patients presenting with ACS with and without indication for oral anticoagulation. In this updated review, we aimed at describing the evidence supporting the current gold standard of antithrombotic management of ACS. More importantly, we provide an overview of some of the ongoing issues and promising therapeutic strategies of this ever-evolving topic.

Bridging the gap: Current and future insights for improving suboptimal platelet inhibition in STEMI

Antiplatelet therapy is one of the cornerstones in the acute treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, hemodynamic changes and delayed intestinal absorption of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors leads to a delay in the onset of antiplatelet effects resulting in a gap of platelet inhibition. Several strategies have been proposed to bridge this gap, such as pre-hospital administration of antiplatelet therapy, higher loading doses of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, crushing or chewing tablets, subcutaneous or intravenous administration of platelet inhibitors, or use of pain relievers alternative to opioids that do not delay intestinal absorption of oral platelet inhibitors. These strategies may improve platelet inhibition with the goal of optimizing clinical outcomes in the acute phase of STEMI. In this review we present current and future insights for bridging the gap in platelet inhibition in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Safety and benefit of Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in out of hospital cardiac arrest patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at higher risk of both stent thrombosis and bleeding. The use of aggressive antiplatelet therapy could lead to a higher risk of bleeding in these patients. Indeed, data on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPi) use in this specific indication is scarce.

AIM

We sought to evaluate the benefit and safety of GPi use in OHCA patients requiring PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between January 2007 and December 2017, we retrospectively included all consecutive patients treated with PCI for an OHCA from cardiac cause. Clinical, procedural data and in-hospital outcomes were collected. Three hundred and eighty-five patients were included. GPi were administrated in 41.3% of cases (159 patients). Patients who received GPi were younger, had less prior PCI, more often a TIMI 0 or 1 flow before PCI and thromboaspiration use. There were no differences regarding in-hospital definite stent thrombosis among the two groups (11.9% in the GPi group vs 7.1% in the non-GPi group, p = 0.10) or in-hospital mortality (48.6% vs 49.3%, p = 0.68). The incidence of any bleeding (33.3% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.002), and major bleeding (BARC 3-5) (21.9% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.007) was significantly higher in patients receiving GPi. Indeed, using multivariate analysis, GPi use was predictor of major bleeding (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.06-3.08; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients treated with PCI for OHCA from cardiac cause, GPi use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events, without difference on in-hospital stent thrombosis or death.