Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FFR Compared with Angiography in Multivessel Disease Patient

Abstract Background: In multivessel disease patients with moderate stenosis, fractional flow reserve (FFR) allows the analysis of the lesions and guides treatment, and could contribute to the cost-effectiveness (CE) of non-pharmacological stents (NPS). Objectives: To evaluate CE and clinical impact of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided angioplasty (ANGIO) in multivessel patients using NPS. Methods: Multivessel disease patients were prospectively randomized to FFR or ANGIO groups during a 5 year-period and followed for < 12 months. Outcomes measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), restenosis and CE. Results: We studied 69 patients, 47 (68.1%) men, aged 62.0 ± 9.0 years, 34 (49.2%) in FFR group and 53 (50.7%) in ANGIO group, with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome. In FFR, there were 26 patients with biarterial disease (76.5%) and 8 (23.5%) with triarterial disease, and in ANGIO, 24 (68.6%) with biarterial and 11 (31.4%) with triarterial disease. Twelve MACEs were observed - 3 deaths: 2 (5.8%) in FFR and 1 (2.8%) in ANGIO, 9 (13.0%) angina: 4(11.7%) in FFR and 5(14.2%) in ANGIO, 6 restenosis: 2(5.8%) in FFR and 4 (11.4%) in ANGIO. Angiography detected 87(53.0%) lesions in FFR, 39(23.7%) with PCI and 48(29.3%) with medical treatment; and 77 (47.0%) lesions in ANGIO, all treated with angioplasty. Thirty-nine (33.3%) stents were registered in FFR (0.45 ± 0.50 stents/lesion) and 78 (1.05 ± 0.22 stents/lesion) in ANGIO (p = 0.0001), 51.4% greater in ANGIO than FFR. CE analysis revealed a cost of BRL 5,045.97 BRL 5,430.60 in ANGIO and FFR, respectively. The difference of effectiveness was of 1.82%. Conclusion: FFR reduced the number of lesions treated and stents, and the need for target-lesion revascularization, with a CE comparable with that of angiography

Oclusão percutânea do apêndice atrial esquerdo com o Amplatzer Cardiac PlugTM na fibrilação atrial

Fundamento: A fibrilação atrial está associada a acidentes vasculares embólicos que frequentemente resultam em morte ou invalidez. Eficaz na redução desses eventos, a anticoagulação possui várias limitações e vem sendo amplamente subutilizada. Mais de 90% dos trombos identificados nos portadores de fibrilação atrial sem doença valvar se originam no apêndice atrial esquerdo, cuja oclusão é investigada como uma alternativa à anticoagulação. Objetivo: Determinar a viabilidade da oclusão percutânea do apêndice atrial esquerdo em pacientes com alto risco de eventos embólicos e limitações ao uso de anticoagulação. Métodos: Relatamos a experiência inicial com o Amplatzer Cardiac PlugTM (St. Jude Medical Inc., Saint Paul, Estados Unidos) em pacientes com fibrilação atrial não valvar. Foram selecionados pacientes com alto risco de tromboembolia, sangramentos maiores e contraindicações ao uso ou grande labilidade na resposta ao anticoagulante. Os procedimentos foram realizados por via percutânea, sob anestesia geral e com ecocardiografia transesofágica. O desfecho primário foi a presença de complicações periprocedimento e o seguimento programado incluiu reavaliação clínica e ecocardiográfica em 30 dias e por contato telefônico após nove meses. Resultados: Nos cinco pacientes selecionados se conseguiu a oclusão do apêndice atrial esquerdo sem complicações periprocedimento. Não houve eventos clínicos no seguimento. Conclusão: Ensaios clínicos controlados são necessários antes que o fechamento percutâneo do apêndice atrial esquerdo constitua uma alternativa à anticoagulação na fibrilação atrial não associada a doença valvar. Mas o dispositivo se mostrou promissor em pacientes com alto risco de embolia e restrições ao uso de anticoagulantes

Left Atrial Appendage Closure with Amplatzer Cardiac Plug in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Safety and Long-Term Outcome

<div><p>Abstract Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a cardiac arrhythmia with high risk for thromboembolic events, specially stroke. Objective: To assess the safety of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with nonvalvular AF. Methods: This study included 15 patients with nonvalvular AF referred for LAAC, 6 older than 75 years (mean age, 69.4 ± 9.3 years; 60% of the male sex). Results: The mean CHADS2 score was 3.4 ± 0.1, and mean CHA2DS2VASc , 4.8 ± 1.8, evidencing a high risk for thromboembolic events. All patients had a HAS-BLED score > 3 (mean, 4.5 ± 1.2) with a high risk for major bleeding within 1 year. The device was successfully implanted in all patients, with correct positioning in the first attempt in most of them (n = 11; 73.3%). Conclusion: There was no periprocedural complication, such as device migration, pericardial tamponade, vascular complications and major bleeding. All patients had an uneventful in-hospital course, being discharged in 2 days. The echocardiographic assessments at 6 and 12 months showed neither device migration, nor thrombus formation, nor peridevice leak. On clinical assessment at 12 months, no patient had thromboembolic events or bleeding related to the device or risk factors. In this small series, LAAC with Amplatzer Cardiac Plug proved to be safe, with high procedural success rate and favorable outcome at the 12-month follow-up. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2017; [online].ahead print, PP.0-0)</p></div

Benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor in acute coronary syndromes: a post hoc analysis of the randomized global leaders trial

What are the benefits and risks of continuing aspirin in addition to P2Y12 receptor inhibition with ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention? FindingsIn this nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial, beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. MeaningThe findings of this hypothesis-generating analysis pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary intervention. ImportanceThe role of aspirin as part of antiplatelet regimens in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) needs to be clarified in the context of newer potent P2Y12 antagonists. ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with ACS beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a nonprespecified, post hoc analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS, a randomized, open-label superiority trial comparing 2 antiplatelet treatment strategies after PCI. The trial included 130 secondary/tertiary care hospitals in different countries, with 15991 unselected patients with stable coronary artery disease or ACS undergoing PCI. Patients had outpatient visits at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after index procedure. InterventionsThe experimental group received aspirin plus ticagrelor for 1 month followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy; the reference group received aspirin plus either clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) or ticagrelor (ACS) for 12 months, followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy. In this analysis, we examined the clinical outcomes occurring between 31 days and 365 days after randomization, specifically in patients with ACS who, within this time frame, were assigned to receive either ticagrelor alone or ticagrelor and aspirin. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction. ResultsOf 15968 participants, there were 7487 patients with ACS enrolled; 3750 patients were assigned to the experimental group and 3737 patients to the reference group. Between 31 and 365 days after randomization, the primary outcome occurred in 55 patients (1.5%) in the experimental group and in 75 patients (2.0%) in the reference group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.51-1.03; P=.07); investigator-reported Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding type 3 or 5 occurred in 28 patients (0.8%) in the experimental group and in 54 patients (1.5%) in the reference arm (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81; P=.004). Conclusions and RelevanceBetween 1 month and 12 months after PCI in ACS, aspirin was associated with increased bleeding risk and appeared not to add to the benefit of ticagrelor on ischemic events. These findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis generating; however, they pave the way for further trials evaluating aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after PCI. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01813435. This secondary analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS randomized clinical trial evaluates the benefit and risks of aspirin in addition to ticagrelor among patients with acute coronary syndrome beyond 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention.4111092110

Ticagrelor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation: Per‐Protocol Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

International audienceBackground In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention‐to‐treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention‐to‐treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per‐protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol. Methods and Results Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time‐varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary end point was a composite of all‐cause mortality or nonfatal Q‐wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2‐year follow‐up, 1103 (13.8%) of 7980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per‐protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary end point was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75–1.03; P =0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety end point of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79–1.26; P =0.99). The per‐protocol and intention‐to‐treat effect estimates were overall consistent. Conclusions Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1‐year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin alone at 2 years after coronary stenting. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01813435