Early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

Background: The optimal timing of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) remains uncertain. We sought to assess clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients in real-world contemporary practice who have early versus delayed PCI for NSTEACS. Methods: We analyzed baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of 4307 patients with NSTEACS who underwent PCI from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Patients were assigned to the early PCI group if intervention was performed within a calendar day of presentation. The delayed PCI group received an intervention after one calendar day, but within the index admission. We assessed 30 days and 12-month mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events. The safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding. Results: Of the 4307 patients, 2210 (51%) received early PCI. The delayed PCI group were older (67+/-12 vs. 64+/-12, P<0.01), more likely to have biomarker elevation (70 vs. 66%, P<0.01), and had more comorbidities. There was no difference in efficacy at 30 days between the groups. At 12 months, delayed PCI was associated with higher mortality (4.6 vs. 3.3%, P=0.02), myocardial infarction (7.9 vs. 5.2%, P<0.01), and MACE (15.5 vs. 12.4%, P<0.01). On multivariate analysis, delayed PCI was not associated with increased mortality at 12 months (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.3). Conclusion: In patients with stable NSTEACS treated with PCI, delayed intervention was performed in those who were older and had higher risk features. However, there appears to be no mortality hazard for these high-risk patients where PCI is delayed beyond the first 24 h after presentation and performed within the index admission

Clopidogrel, Prasugrel or Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Aim: We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. Methods: We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009–2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. Results: For the period of 2009–2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). Conclusion Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events