Developing drugs for use before, during and soon after percutaneous coronary intervention

Efficacy and safety of intracoronary versus intravenous tirofiban in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Effective antiplatelet therapy is critical for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and receiving primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PPCI). Intracoronary (IC) and intravenous (IV) administration of tirofiban are commonly used during the procedure of PPCI. However, which is the better administration route of tirofiban have not been fully evaluated.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of RCTs that comparing IC with IV tirofiban in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI was conducted, which were published as of May 7, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding events.

Results

This meta-analysis included 9 trials involving 1177 patients. IC tirofiban significantly reduced the incidence of 30-day MACE (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.95, P = 0.028) and improved the rate of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow in high-dose (25 μg/kg) group (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.99-1.30, P = 0.001), in-hospital (WMD 2.03, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.02, P < 0.001), and 6-month left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 6.01, 95% CI: 5.02 to 6.99, P < 0.001) compared with IV. There was no significant difference in the incidences of in-hospital bleeding events (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.38, P = 0.82) and thrombocytopenia (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.26 to 1.57, P = 0.32) between the two groups.

Conclusions

IC tirofiban significantly improved the incidence of TIMI 3 in the high-dose group, in-hospital and 6-month LVEF, and reduced the 30-day MACE incidence without increasing the risk of bleeding compared with IV.

Unravelling the puzzle of antithrombotic therapies for complex percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has remarkably evolved in the last decades. This has resulted in a larger number of patients treated with PCI, including those with more complex anatomic lesions. Several studies demonstrated that PCI involving complex lesions is associated with increased rate of procedural complications and adverse clinical outcomes. In this setting, optimal adjunctive antithrombotic regimens still need to be defined. In this review, we sought to summarize and discuss the recent evidence deriving from analyses appraising antithrombotic therapies in patients undergoing complex PCI.

Facilitation Through Aggrastat or Cangrelor Bolus and Infusion Over PrasugreL: a MUlticenter Randomized Open-label Trial in PatientS with ST-elevation Myocardial InFarction Referred for PrimAry PercutaneouS InTERvention (FABOLUS FASTER) Trial: Design and Rationale : The FABOLUS FASTER Trial

Antithrombotic therapy is a critical component of the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Rapid and profound inhibition of platelet reactivity has been shown to mitigate the ischemic risks and improve myocardial salvage. High residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) has been reported up to 4 or 6 h after loading dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor; therefore, multiple alternative strategies, including crushed or chewed oral tables or intravenous agents, have been investigated to provide a more rapid and sustained inhibition of platelet function and bridge the initial treatment gap. The FABOLUS FASTER is the first investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, prospective, randomized study to directly compare the pharmacodynamics effects of cangrelor, tirofiban, chewed or integer prasugrel. This study will add new insights in the management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI and might be hypothesis-generating for future clinical trials in this field. The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT02978040, and EudraCT 2017-001065-24.

The Activated Clotting Time Paradox

Background:

Radial artery occlusion (RAO) is a thrombotic complication of transradial catheterization that can lead to permanent occlusion of the radial artery. Sheath-vessel diameter ratio, postprocedure compression time, occlusive hemostasis, and insufficient anticoagulation are all predictors of RAO. However, excessive anticoagulation can lead to longer time to achieve complete hemostasis and less patent hemostasis rate. This study was designed to assess the relationship among residual anticoagulation at the end of a percutaneous coronary procedure and the risk of RAO.

Methods:

Eight hundred thirty-seven patients undergoing transradial catheterization were enrolled. Activated clotting time (ACT) was measured before sheath removal. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to ACT values (ACT <150 s, ACT between 150 and 249 s, ACT >250 s), patent hemostasis with reverse Barbeau test was attempted in all patients, and compression device removed as soon as possible. Within 24 hours, patency of radial artery was checked by Doppler using reverse Barbeau technique.

Results:

Incidence of RAO was higher for the extreme ACT values. Patent hemostasis were less frequently obtained and time to hemostasis significantly longer for increasing ACT values ( P =0.004 for trend and <0.0001 for trend, respectively). At logistic regression analysis, ACT values <150 s were an independent predictor of RAO (odds ratio, 3.53; 95% IC, 1.677–7.43; P =0.001) while adjusted probability for RAO confirmed U-shaped relationship with ACT values.

Conclusions:

The level of anticoagulation is strongly related to incidence of RAO and should be measured objectively by ACT.

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02762344.

Bivalirudin or Heparin in Patients Undergoing Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs).

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management.

METHODS

In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding).

RESULTS

Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site-related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Long-Term Use of Ticagrelor in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize and discuss safety and effectiveness of the long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Ticagrelor is an orally administered, direct, and reversible inhibitor of the P2Y₁₂-platelet receptor. Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) has been investigated in the PEGASUS-TIMI-54 trial. Overall, 21,162 patients with a spontaneous MI 1 to 3 years before randomization were randomly assigned to ticagrelor 90 mg bid, ticagrelor 60 mg bid, or placebo. Compared with placebo, both doses of ticagrelor showed that they were capable of significantly reducing the primary efficacy endpoint, although with a significant increase in TIMI major bleeding. Intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding did not differ across groups. These findings establish clear benefit of DAPT extension with ticagrelor beyond 1 year of treatment, which comes with a tradeoff of clinically meaningful bleeding. Altogether, current evidence suggests that the duration of DAPT remains a patient-by-patient decision based on thrombotic and bleeding risk profiles.

Current and novel approaches to treat patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction

INTRODUCTION

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the gold-standard treatment for patients presenting with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Acute myocardial infarction is a complex clinical scenario, and an appropriate therapeutic approach could be represented by a balanced integration between healthcare system and medical competence.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we discuss how a primary PCI network, and the new therapeutic options could be coupled in order to obtain improved clinical outcomes. The present report will focus on three main issues related to STEMI patients, namely, out of hospital management, primary PCI and pharmacological treatment. Expert commentary: A possible correct approach to a patient presenting a STEMI could be considered as a stepwise process, given by 5 steps: reducing the time to reperfusion; dual antiplatelet administration; radial access; new generation drug eluting stent implantation; long term management.