Evaluation of coronary features of HIV patients presenting with ACS. the CUORE, a multicenter study

Background and aims: The risk of recurrence of myocardial infarction (MI) in HIV patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is well known, but there is limited evidence about potential differences in coronary plaques compared to non-HIV patients. Methods: In this multicenter case-control study, HIV patients presenting with ACS, with intravascular-ultrasound (IVUS) data, enrolled between February 2015 and June 2017, and undergoing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), were retrospectively compared to non-HIV patients presenting with ACS, before and after propensity score with matching, randomly selected from included centers. Primary end-point was the prevalence of multivessel disease. Secondary end-points were the prevalence of abnormal features at IVUS, the incidence of major-acute-cardiovascular-events (MACE), a composite end point of cardiovascular death, MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), non-cardiac death and target vessel revascularization (TVR). For each end-point, a subgroup analysis was conducted in HIV patients with CD4 cell count <200/mm3. Results: Before propensity score, 66 HIV patients and 120 non-HIV patients were selected, resulting in 20 and 40 after propensity score. Patients with multivessel disease were 11 and 17, respectively (p = 0.56). IVUS showed a lower plaque burden (71% vs. 75%, p < 0.001) and a higher prevalence of hyperechoic non-calcified plaques (100% vs. 35%, p < 0.05) in HIV patients; a higher prevalence of hypoechoic plaques (7% vs. 0%, p < 0.05), a higher incidence of MACE (17.4% vs. 9.1% vs. l’8.0%, p < 0.05), MI recurrence (17.2% vs. 0.0% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.05), and ST (6.7% vs. 0.3% vs. 03%, p < 0.05) in HIV patients with CD4 < 200/mm3. Conclusions: Our study may provide a part of the pathophysiological basis of the differences in coronary arteries between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients, suggesting that the former present with peculiar morphological features at IVUS, even after adjustment for clinical variables. Furthermore, we confirmed that an advanced HIV infection is associated with a high risk of non-calcific plaques and with a worse prognosis, including cardiovascular events and ACS recurrence

Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in ACS Patients Treated with PCI: A Propensity Score Analysis of the RENAMI and BleeMACS Registries

Introduction: Real-life data comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are lacking, as are data for the temporal distribution of ischemic and bleeding risks. Methods: A total of 19,825 patients were enrolled from the RENAMI and BleeMACS registries. Both were multicenter, retrospective, observational registries including the data and outcomes of consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary PCI and were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We evaluated the long-term outcome stratified by the different antiplatelet agents. Results: A total of 14,105 patients (71.2%) were treated with clopidogrel, 2364 patients (11.9%) with prasugrel and 3356 patients (16.9%) with ticagrelor. After propensity score matching, at 1 year, prasugrel reduced the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE; a composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI] and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 3–5 bleeding) (4.2% vs.7.6%, p = 0.002) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of death and MI) compared with clopidogrel (2.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.007). Ticagrelor decreased rates of MACE compared with clopidogrel (2.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), but not of NACE (6.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.07). Ticagrelor presented similar performance in terms of MACE compared with prasugrel (2.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.56), with a trend towards a reduction in MI (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56), but with higher risk of BARC 3–5 bleedings (3.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.04). In the daily risk analysis, clopidogrel presented a binomial distribution with a peak of ischemic risk at 3 months, which decreased towards bleedings; prasugrel had a constant equivalence between opposite risks; and ticagrelor constantly reduced recurrent MIs despite higher risk of BARC 3–5 events. Conclusion: In real life, ticagrelor is more effective in reducing ischemic events during the first year after ACS, despite an increased risk of major bleedings, while prasugrel assures a better balance between ischemic and bleeding recurrent events