The Association of Atrial Fibrillation Before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With 1-Year Outcome in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients

Cited by: 1; All Open Access, Gold Open Access, Green Open AccessPeer reviewe

Double-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Clopidogrel According to Smoking Status Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel (“smoker's paradox”). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear. Methods and Results: We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT‐OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events—Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double‐dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2–7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard‐dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double‐ versus standard‐dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome (P=0.031) and major bleeding (P=0.002). Double‐ versus standard‐dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.87, P=0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80–1.14, P=0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48–1.24, P=0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double‐dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37–2.60, P<0.0001). Double‐dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24–0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42–0.93; P for interaction=0.19). Conclusions: In smokers, a double‐dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452

Efficacy and Safety of Fondaparinux Versus Enoxaparin in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated With Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors or Thienopyridines Results From the OASIS 5 (Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes) Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors or thienopyridines.BackgroundThe OASIS 5 (Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes) trial showed that fondaparinux reduced major bleeding by 50% compared with enoxaparin while preserving similar efficacy. Whether this benefit is consistent in the presence or absence of concurrent antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors is unknown.MethodsPatients with ACS (n =20,078) were randomized as a part of the OASIS 5 trial to receive either fondaparinux or enoxaparin. The use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors or thienopyridines was at the discretion of the treating physician. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare outcomes.ResultsOf the 20,078 patients randomized, 3,630 patients received GP IIb/IIIa and 13,531 received thienopyridines. There was a 40% reduction in major bleeding with fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin in those treated with GP IIb/IIIa (5.2% vs. 8.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61, p < 0.001). A similar reduction was found in those treated with thienopyridines (3.4% vs. 5.4%, HR: 0.62, p < 0.001). Ischemic events were similar between the groups, resulting in a superior net clinical outcome (death, myocardial infarction, refractory ischemia, or major bleeding) favoring fondaparinux (GP IIb/IIIa subgroup 14.8% vs. 18.9%, HR: 0.77, p = 0.001 and thienopyridines subgroup 11.0% vs. 13.2%, HR: 0.82, p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn patients receiving GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors or thienopyridines, fondaparinux reduces major bleeding and improves net clinical outcome compared with enoxaparin

Radial First in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

As young interventionalists, we recall randomizing patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) into studies such as the RIVAL trial (the Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention) and struggling with a subclavian loop or variant arm anatomy but completing the case.1 It attracted attention from senior colleagues, and we were told that it may not be safe to do STEMI cases radially due to the inherent time delay associated with these type of technical issues. They asked not to randomize patients themselves but thankfully supported the scientific endeavor and the trials continued