The ESC ACCA EAPCI EORP acute coronary syndrome ST-elevation myocardial infarction registry

Aims 

The Acute Cardiac Care Association (ACCA)–European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (EAPCI) Registry on ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) of the EurObservational programme (EORP) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) registry aimed to determine the current state of the use of reperfusion therapy in ESC member and ESC affiliated countries and the adherence to ESC STEMI guidelines in patients with STEMI.

Methods and results 

Between 1 January 2015 and 31 March 2018, a total of 11 462 patients admitted with an initial diagnosis of STEMI according to the 2012 ESC STEMI guidelines were enrolled. Individual patient data were collected across 196 centres and 29 countries. Among the centres, there were 136 percutaneous coronary intervention centres and 91 with cardiac surgery on-site. The majority of centres (129/196) were part of a STEMI network. The main objective of this study was to describe the demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics of patients with STEMI. Other objectives include to assess management patterns and in particular the current use of reperfusion therapies and to evaluate how recommendations of most recent STEMI European guidelines regarding reperfusion therapies and adjunctive pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are adopted in clinical practice and how their application can impact on patients’ outcomes. Patients will be followed for 1 year after admission.

Conclusion 

The ESC ACCA-EAPCI EORP ACS STEMI registry is an international registry of care and outcomes of patients hospitalized with STEMI. It will provide insights into the contemporary patient profile, management patterns, and 1-year outcome of patients with STEMI.

Contemporary antiplatelet treatment in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: 1-year outcomes from the GReek AntiPlatElet (GRAPE) Registry

Essentials The comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents in 'real life' is not clear. We recruited acute coronary syndrome patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention. At 1-year follow-up, prasugrel offers better anti-ischemic protection than clopidogrel. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are accompanied by more frequent bleeding events.

SUMMARY

Background The comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet treatment outside randomized trials is not clear. Objectives To investigate long-term efficacy and safety in 'real-life' acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary use of clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study, 2047 patients were recruited into the GReek AntiPlatElet (GRAPE) Registry and were followed-up for 1 year for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization and stroke) and bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification). Results Exposure to clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor by PCI occurred in 959, 363 and 717 patients, respectively. After adjustment, the rate of MACE (primary outcome endpoint) was lower in prasugrel-treated patients (4.4%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (10.1%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.91), although not significantly different between ticagrelor (6.8%) and clopidogrel groups (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54-1.12). Any type of BARC-classified bleeding (secondary outcome endpoint) was more frequent in prasugrel-treated patients (51.2%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (37.6%) (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and more frequent in ticagrelor-treated patients (56.9%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.55-2.10). An adjusted comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor-treated groups did not reveal differences in any outcome measure. After adjustment, the death rate was more reduced by novel agents in comparison with clopidogrel (2.9% vs. 6.2%). Conclusions In ACS/PCI patients, prasugrel offered better anti-ischemic protection than clopidogrel, whereas use of both novel agents is accompanied by more frequent bleeding events.

Antiplatelet effects of prasugrel vs. double clopidogrel in patients on hemodialysis and with high on-treatment platelet reactivity

BACKGROUND

High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) is frequent in patients on hemodialysis (HD) receiving clopidrogel.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to determine the antiplatelet effects of prasugrel vs. high-dose clopidogrel in patients on HD with HTPR.

PATIENTS/METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, single-blind, investigator-initiated, randomized, crossover study to compare platelet inhibition by prasugrel 10 mg day(-1) with that by high-dose 150 mg day(-1) clopidogrel in 21 patients on chronic HD with HTPR. Platelet function was assessed with the VerifyNow assay, and genotyping was performed for CYP2C19*2 carriage.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of platelet reactivity (PR, measured in P2Y12 reaction units [PRU]) was lower in patients receiving prasugrel (least squares [LS] estimate 156.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 132.2-181.1) than in those receiving high-dose clopidogrel (LS 279.9, 95% CI 255.4-304.3), P < 0.001). The LS mean differences between the two treatments were - 113.4 PRU (95% CI - 152.9 to - 73.8, P < 0.001) and - 163.8 PRU (95% CI - 218.1 to - 109.2, P < 0.001) in non-carriers and carriers of at least one CYP2C19*2 allele, respectively. HTPR rates were lower for prasugrel than clopidogrel, in all patients (19% vs. 85.7%, P < 0.001) and in non-carriers (25.7% vs. 80%, P = 0.003). All carriers continued to show HTPR while receiving high-dose clopidogrel, but none showed it while receiving prasugrel.

CONCLUSIONS

In HD patients exhibiting HTPR following standard clopidogrel treatment, prasugrel 10 mg day(-1) is significantly more efficient than doubling the clopidogrel dosage in achieving adequate platelet inhibition. Neither effect seems to be influenced by carriage of the loss-of-function CYP2C19*2 allele.