Rationale and Design of the Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) Registry: Towards "Personalized Medicine" in Daily Clinical Practice

Diagnostic and treatment strategies for acute coronary syndrome have improved dramatically over the past few decades, but mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction rates remain high. An aging population with increasing co-morbidities heralds new clinical challenges. Therefore, in order to evaluate and improve current treatment strategies, detailed information on clinical presentation, treatment and follow-up in real-world patients is needed. The Future Optimal Research and Care Evaluation in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome (FORCE-ACS) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03823547) is a multi-center, prospective real-world registry of patients admitted with (suspected) acute coronary syndrome. Both non-interventional and interventional cardiac centers in different regions of the Netherlands are currently participating. Patients are treated according to local protocols, enabling the evaluation of different diagnostic and treatment strategies used in daily practice. Data collection is performed using electronic medical records and quality-of-life questionnaires, which are sent 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after initial admission. Major end points are all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization and all bleeding requiring medical attention. Invasive therapy, antithrombotic therapy including patient-tailored strategies, such as the use of risk scores, pharmacogenetic guided antiplatelet therapy and patient reported outcome measures are monitored. The FORCE-ACS registry provides insight into numerous aspects of the (quality of) care for acute coronary syndrome patients

Less bleeding by omitting aspirin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients: Rationale and design of the LEGACY study

BACKGROUND: Early aspirin withdrawal, also known as P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) can reduce bleeding without a trade-off in efficacy. Still the average daily bleeding risk is highest during the first months and it remains unclear if aspirin can be omitted immediately following PCI. METHODS: The LEGACY study is an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of immediate P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months in 3,090 patients. Patients are randomized immediately following successful PCI for NSTE-ACS to 75-100 mg aspirin once daily versus no aspirin. The primary hypothesis is that immediately omitting aspirin is superior to DAPT with respect to major or minor bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, while maintaining noninferiority for the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke compared to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: The LEGACY study is the first randomized study that is specifically designed to evaluate the impact of immediately omitting aspirin, and thus treating patients with P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy, as compared to DAPT for 12 months on bleeding and ischemic events within 12 months following PCI for NSTE-ACS

Identification and treatment of the vulnerable coronary plaque

Acute coronary syndrome mostly arises from rupture or erosion of a vulnerable plaque. Vulnerable plaques typically appear as lipid-rich plaques with a thin cap, called thin-cap fibroatheromas. Various intracoronary imaging techniques can be used to detect vulnerable plaques, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), each visualizing different high-risk plaque characteristics. IVUS and its post-processing techniques, such as virtual histology IVUS, can primarily be used to identify calcified and soft plaques, while OCT is also able to quantitatively measure the cap thickness. The addition of NIRS allows the exact measurement of lipid content in the plaque. Non-invasive imaging techniques to identify vulnerable plaques, such as computed tomography, are less often used but are evolving and may be of additional diagnostic use, especially when prophylactic treatments for vulnerable plaques are further established. Pharmacological treatment with lipid-lowering or anti-inflammatory medication leads to plaque stabilization and reduction of cardiovascular events. Moreover, the implantation of a stent or scaffold for the local treatment of vulnerable plaques has been found to be safe and to stabilize high-risk plaque features. The use of drug-coated balloons to treat vulnerable plaques is the subject of ongoing research. Future studies should focus on non-invasive imaging techniques to adequately identify vulnerable plaques and further randomized clinical studies are necessary to find the most appropriate treatment strategy for vulnerable plaques

Detection of Vulnerable Coronary Plaques Using Invasive and Non-Invasive Imaging Modalities

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly arises from so-called vulnerable coronary plaques, particularly prone for rupture. Vulnerable plaques comprise a specific type of plaque, called the thin-cap fibroatheroma (TFCA). A TCFA is characterized by a large lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin fibrous cap, inflammation, neovascularization, intraplaque hemorrhage, microcalcifications or spotty calcifications, and positive remodeling. Vulnerable plaques are often not visible during coronary angiography. However, different plaque features can be visualized with the use of intracoronary imaging techniques, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), potentially with the addition of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or optical coherence tomography (OCT). Non-invasive imaging techniques, such as computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and nuclear imaging, can be used as an alternative for these invasive imaging techniques. These invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities can be implemented for screening to guide primary or secondary prevention therapies, leading to a more patient-tailored diagnostic and treatment strategy. Systemic pharmaceutical treatment with lipid-lowering or anti-inflammatory medication leads to plaque stabilization and reduction of cardiovascular events. Additionally, ongo-ing studies are investigating whether modification of vulnerable plaque features with local invasive treatment options leads to plaque stabilization and subsequent cardiovascular risk reduction

Detection of Vulnerable Coronary Plaques Using Invasive and Non-Invasive Imaging Modalities

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly arises from so-called vulnerable coronary plaques, particularly prone for rupture. Vulnerable plaques comprise a specific type of plaque, called the thin-cap fibroatheroma (TFCA). A TCFA is characterized by a large lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin fibrous cap, inflammation, neovascularization, intraplaque hemorrhage, microcalcifications or spotty calcifications, and positive remodeling. Vulnerable plaques are often not visible during coronary angiography. However, different plaque features can be visualized with the use of intracoronary imaging techniques, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), potentially with the addition of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or optical coherence tomography (OCT). Non-invasive imaging techniques, such as computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and nuclear imaging, can be used as an alternative for these invasive imaging techniques. These invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities can be implemented for screening to guide primary or secondary prevention therapies, leading to a more patient-tailored diagnostic and treatment strategy. Systemic pharmaceutical treatment with lipid-lowering or anti-inflammatory medication leads to plaque stabilization and reduction of cardiovascular events. Additionally, ongo-ing studies are investigating whether modification of vulnerable plaque features with local invasive treatment options leads to plaque stabilization and subsequent cardiovascular risk reduction

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after coronary stenting: are all P2Y12-inhibitors equal?

Introduction: P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy following 1–3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces (major) bleeding without an apparent increase in ischemic events and has therefore emerged as an alternative to 6–12 months of DAPT following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there are important differences between the available P2Y12-inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) as agents of choice for P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy. Areas covered: This review critically appraises the evidence for P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after PCI using either clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor. Furthermore, we discuss ongoing trials and future directions for research. Expert opinion: P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy following 1–3 months of DAPT is an alternative to 6–12 months of DAPT following PCI. Ticagrelor may be considered the current preferred option due to its reliable effect on platelet reactivity and its predominant use in clinical trials. Prasugrel could serve as a useful substitute for those not tolerating ticagrelor, but more research into prasugrel monotherapy is warranted. Alternatively, clopidogrel can be used, although there are concerns of high platelet reactivity, especially when genotyping and/or platelet function testing are not used. Future research will need to address the minimal duration of DAPT before switching to P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and what the optimal antithrombotic therapy beyond 12 months is

P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after coronary stenting: are all P2Y12-inhibitors equal?

Introduction: P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy following 1–3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces (major) bleeding without an apparent increase in ischemic events and has therefore emerged as an alternative to 6–12 months of DAPT following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there are important differences between the available P2Y12-inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) as agents of choice for P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy. Areas covered: This review critically appraises the evidence for P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy after PCI using either clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor. Furthermore, we discuss ongoing trials and future directions for research. Expert opinion: P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy following 1–3 months of DAPT is an alternative to 6–12 months of DAPT following PCI. Ticagrelor may be considered the current preferred option due to its reliable effect on platelet reactivity and its predominant use in clinical trials. Prasugrel could serve as a useful substitute for those not tolerating ticagrelor, but more research into prasugrel monotherapy is warranted. Alternatively, clopidogrel can be used, although there are concerns of high platelet reactivity, especially when genotyping and/or platelet function testing are not used. Future research will need to address the minimal duration of DAPT before switching to P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy and what the optimal antithrombotic therapy beyond 12 months is

Cangrelor use in routine practice: a two-center experience

Cangrelor is the first and only intravenous P2Y 12-inhibitor and is indicated when (timely) administration of an oral P2Y 12 inhibitor is not feasible in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our study evaluated the first years of cangrelor use in two Dutch tertiary care centers. Cangrelor-treated patients were identified using a data-mining algorithm. The cumulative incidences of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis and major bleeding at 48 h and 30 days were assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Predictors of 30-day mortality were identified using uni-and multivariable Cox regression models. Between March 2015 and April 2021, 146 patients (median age 63.7 years, 75.3% men) were treated with cangrelor. Cangrelor was primarily used in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients (84.2%). Approximately half required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (54.8%) or mechanical ventilation (48.6%). The cumulative incidence of all-cause death was 11.0% and 25.3% at 48 h and 30 days, respectively. Two cases (1.7%) of definite stent thrombosis, both resulting in myocardial infarction, occurred within 30 days, but after 48 h. No other cases of recurrent myocardial infarction transpired within 30 days. Major bleeding occurred in 5.6% and 12.5% of patients within 48 h and 30 days, respectively. Cardiac arrest at presentation was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 5.20, 95%-CI: 2.10–12.9, p < 0.01). Conclusively, cangrelor was used almost exclusively in STEMI patients undergoing PCI. Even though cangrelor was used in high-risk patients, its use was associated with a low rate of stent thrombosis

Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention

Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing, and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice. [GRAPHICS

Impact of recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the FORCE-ACS registry

Objective Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for recurrent ischaemic and bleeding events during follow-up. Our study aimed to quantify and compare the impact of these adverse events on quality of life (QoL).Methods Data from patients with ACS prospectively enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for this study. The primary ischaemic and bleeding events of interest were hospital readmission for ACS and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or 3 bleeding during 12 months follow-up. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the 12-item Short Form Survey version 2 derived Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) scores at 12 months follow-up.Results In total, 3339 patients (mean age 66.8 years, 27.9% women) were included. During follow-up, ischaemic events occurred in 202 patients (6.0%) and bleeding events in 565 patients (16.9%). After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, ischaemic events remained independently associated with lower QoL regardless of metric used. Bleeding was also independently associated with lower EQ-5D VAS and PCS scores, but not with a lower MCS score. The QoL decrement associated with ischaemic events was numerically larger than the decrement associated with bleeding.Conclusions Ischaemic and bleeding events remain prevalent and are independently associated with lower QoL at 12 months follow-up in patients previously admitted for ACS. The incidence and impact of these adverse events should be considered when balancing individual ischaemic and bleeding risks