Prasugrel or clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes at high thrombotic risk: results from the PROMETHEUS study

Background

Potent P2Y12 inhibitors are recommended on top of aspirin in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, guideline recommendations suggest that the optimal antithrombotic strategy should be tailored based on patients thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk profile.

Purpose

It is poorly investigated if the benefits derived from potent P2Y12 inhibition in patients with ACS depend on the individual thrombotic risk profile. Our aim was to evaluate if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are similar in case of different thrombotic risk profiles.

Methods

PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. According to the 2020 ESC guidelines for non-ST elevation-ACS, patients are defined at high thrombotic risk if presenting with a clinical (diabetes mellitus requiring medication, history of recurrent myocardial infarction [MI], multivessel coronary artery disease [CAD], polyvascular [coronary and peripheral] disease, premature (<45 years) CAD, and chronic kidney disease [estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73m2]) and procedural (≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length >60 mm, complex revascularization [left main PCI, bifurcation or chronic total occlusion]) risk features. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death, MI, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using propensity-stratified analysis to assess the effect of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel and with multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the impact of thrombotic risk.

Results

Among 16065 patients, 4293 were defined at high thrombotic risk and 11772 at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. Patients treated with prasugrel had less comorbidities and risk factors than those treated with clopidogrel, both in the high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk strata. Patients at high thrombotic risk had higher rates of both ischemic and bleeding events at 90 days and at 1 year. Patients treated with prasugrel had a lower adjusted risk of MACE at 1 year (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.96), with no significant interaction between effect estimates and thrombotic risk. However, after stratifying the study population by the number of risk factors, there was a significant interaction for a greater reduction in MACE with prasugrel in patients with ≤1 thrombotic risk factor. Conversely, there were no differences in major bleeding among patients treated with prasugrel and clopidogrel.

Conclusions

Patients with ACS at high thrombotic risk who undergo PCI are at increased risk of adverse events. Prasugrel, although mainly reserved to patients with lower burden of comorbidities, reduced the risk of ischemic events both in patients at high and low-to-moderate thrombotic risk as compared with clopidogrel.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly and Company Clinical outcomes at 1 year.Impact of number of risk factors

SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with and without a history of heart failure: a meta-analysis

Background

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors emerged as a new groundbreaking therapy for patients with heart failure. Recent evidence showed significant benefits in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), regardless of diabetic status. Whether these medications also improve outcomes in patients without a history of heart failure or with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unknown.

Purpose

We sought to perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes according to the history and type of heart failure.

Methods

All randomized, placebo-controlled trials of SGLT-2 inhibitors reporting similar CV outcomes were evaluated for inclusion. PubMed was searched from January 1, 2010 to February 1, 2021. Articles were independently reviewed and selected by two reviewers. The primary outcome was the composite of first hospitalization for heart failure and CV death. Secondary outcomes included its single components and all-cause mortality. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effect estimates and calculated with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 index, and random-effects meta-regression was used to assess the interaction between treatment effect and history of heart failure and type of heart failure (HFrEF vs. HFpEF).

Results

Data from eight trials and a total of 56,665 patients (n=31,609 in SGLT-2 group, n=25,056 in placebo group) were included. Five studies enrolled high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus, while 3 studies enrolled patients with symptomatic heart failure. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of first hospitalization for heart failure and CV death in patients with (HR 0.75 95% CI 0.70–0.81) and without (HR 0.78 95% CI 0.67–0.90; Figure 1) a history of heart failure. Similarly, patients with (HR 0.85 95% CI 0.78–0.93) or without (HR 0.85 95% CI 0.74–0.98) a history of heart failure treated with SGLT-2 inhibitors had a significant reduction in all-cause mortality. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of CV death regardless of the history of heart failure, although the reduction was border-line statistically significant in patients without a history of heart failure (HR 0.81 95% CI 0.66–1.00; Figure 2). All subgroup interaction testing between patients with and without a history of heart failure was negative for all the above endpoints. Among patients with HFpEF, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a nonsignificant trend towards reduced risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.80 95% CI 0.63–1.02).

Conclusions

SGLT-2 inhibitors significantly improve CV outcomes in patients with or without history of heart failure, and this effect seems to be consistent among those with HFrEF and HFpEF.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. CV death or HF hospitalizationFigure 2. Meta-analysis CV death

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes in females undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents

Background

Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is associated with increased risk of adverse events among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Due to under-enrollment of females in randomized trials, there is limited data on the impact of LVEF on post-PCI outcomes in female patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of varying degrees of LVEF impairment on 3-year outcomes in female patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

We pooled patient-level data of female patients from 26 randomized trials of coronary stents. The study population was stratified into three groups according to the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure guidelines: LVEF ≥50% (normal), LVEF 40–49% (mid-range), and LVEF <40% (reduced). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis (ST) at 3-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analyses, with comparative risks being assessed using Cox regression.

Results

Out of 5672 female patients with available LVEF values at baseline, 4427 (78.1%) had normal LVEF, 602 (10.6%) had mid-range LVEF, and 643 (11.3%) had reduced LVEF. Patients with reduced LVEF were older and had a higher prevalence of smoking, prior MI, and multi-vessel disease. There was a stepwise increase in 3-year event rates moving from normal, to mid-range and reduced LVEF (Figure 1). After multivariable adjustment, hazard ratio (HR) for MACE was 1.45 (95% CI: 1.10–1.92) in patients with mid-range LVEF and 2.43 (95% CI: 1.84–3.22) in patients with reduced LVEF (trend p-value <0.0001). The risk of ST was more than doubled in both mid-range LVEF (HR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.30–4.06, p=0.004) and reduced LVEF patients (HR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.11–4.28, p=0.02), as compared with normal LVEF.

Conclusion

The presence of an even mild degree of LVEF impairment confers an increased risk of ischemic events, including ST, among females undergoing PCI with DES.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1

The current treatment and predictors of outcome in elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in an all comers population: the POPular Age registry

Background

Elderly patients form a large and growing part of the patients presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Choosing the optimal antithrombotic treatment in these elderly patients is more complicated because they frequently have characteristics indicating both a high ischaemic and high bleeding risk.

Purpose

We describe the treatment of elderly patients (>75 years) admitted with NSTEMI, present the outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding) and aim to find predictors for adverse events.

Methods

The POPular AGE registry is an investigator initiated, prospective, observational, multicentre study of patients aged 75 years or older presenting with NSTEMI. Patients were recruited between August 1st, 2016 and May 7th, 2018 at 21 sites in the Netherlands. The primary composite endpoint of MACE included cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke at one-year follow-up.

Results

A total of 757 patients were enrolled. During hospital stay 76% underwent coronary angiography, 34% percutaneous coronary intervention and 12% coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). At discharge 78.6% received aspirin (non-users mostly because of the combination of oral anticoagulant and clopidogrel), 49.7% were treated with clopidogrel, 34.2% with ticagrelor and 29.6% were prescribed oral anticoagulation. Eighty-three percent of patients received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or dual therapy consisting of oral anticoagulation and at least one antiplatelet agent for a duration of 12 months. At one year, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in 12.3% of patients and major bleeding (BARC 3 or 5) occurred in 4.8% of the patients. The risk of MACE and major bleeding was highest during the first month and stayed high over time for MACE while the risk for major bleeding levelled off. Independent predictors for MACE were age, renal function, medical history of CABG, stroke and diabetes. The only independent predictor for major bleeding was haemoglobin level on admission.

Conclusion

In this all-comers registry, most elderly patients (≥75 years) with NSTEMI are treated with DAPT and undergoing coronary angiography the same way as younger NSTEMI patients from the SWEDEHEART registry. Aspirin use was lower as was the use of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors compared to the SWEDEHEART which is very likely due to the concomitant use of oral anticoagulation in 30% of patients. The fact that ischemic risk stays constant over 1 year of follow-up, while the bleeding risk levels off after one month may suggest the need of dual antiplatelet therapy until at least one year after NSTEMI.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): AstraZeneca