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

Background 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

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on efficacy of antiplatelet strategies with ticagrelor or aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention:Insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

BACKGROUND Several studies have suggested that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may reduce the antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and/or aspirin, possibly leading to cardiovascular events. AIMS We aimed to investigate the association between PPI and clinical outcomes in patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS This is a subanalysis of the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial, comparing the experimental antiplatelet arm (23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT]) with the reference arm (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after PCI. Patient-oriented composite endpoints (POCEs: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization) and its components were assessed stratified by PPI use as a time-dependent covariate in patients with the experiment or reference antiplatelet arm. RESULTS Among 15,839 patients, 2115 patients (13.5%) experienced POCE at 2 years. In the reference arm, the use of PPIs was independently associated with POCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.44) and its individual components, whereas it was not in the experimental arm (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.92-1.19; pinteraction  = 0.035). During the second-year follow-up, patients taking aspirin with PPIs had a significantly higher risk of POCE compared to those on aspirin without PPIs (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27-1.94), whereas the risk did not differ significantly irrespective of PPI in ticagrelor monotherapy group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83-1.28; pinteraction  = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS In contrast to conventional antiplatelet strategy, there were no evidence suggesting the interaction between ticagrelor monotherapy and PPIs on increased cardiovascular events, which should be confirmed in further studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov

Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

Background: Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. Methods: Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. Results: In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because thisContexte : Il a et e d emontr e que l ’accès par l’artère radiale reduit la mortalite et les h emorragies, en particulier chez les patients presentant un syndrome coronarien aigu. Malgr e cela, les cardiologues interventionnels qui ont acquis de l’experience en matière d ’accès par l’artère femorale pr efèrent encore utiliser cette voie lorsqu ’ils doivent pratiquer une intervention coronarienne percutanee. On connaît mal l’interêt de chacune de ces techniques d ’accès vasculaire au regard du risque d’hemorragie. Methodologie : Les patients de l’essai GLOBAL LEADERS ont et e repartis en deux groupes, selon qu ’ils presentaient un risque d’hemorragie faible ou elev e d ’après le score PRECISE-DAPT median, puis les resultats cliniques ont et e compar es à 30 jours. Resultats : Dans l’ensemble de la population, aucune difference sta- tistiquement significative n’a et e observ ee entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant au critère d ’evaluation principal, compos e de la mortalite toutes causes confondues et d ’un nouvel infarctus du myocarde (IM) avec onde Q (rapport des risques instantanes [RRI] de 0,70; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 0,42-1,15). L’accès radial a et e associe à un taux signi ficativement plus faible de survenue du critère secondaire d’evaluation de l ’innocuite, c ’est-à-dire une hemorragie de type 3 ou 5 selon la classification du BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) (RRI de 0,55; IC à 95 % : 0,36-0,84). Lorsqu’on compare les sujets en fonction du risque d’hemorragie, les critères d’evaluation de l ’innocuite principal (RRI de 0,47; IC à 95 % : 0,26- 0,85; p ¼ 0,012; pinteraction ¼ 0,019) et secondaire (RRI de 0,57; IC à 95 % : 0,35-0,95; p ¼ 0,030; pinteraction ¼ 0,631) sont favorables à l’accès radial au sein de la population presentant un risque d ’hemor- ragie elev e. Dans la population pr esentant un risque d ’hemorragie faible, les differences entre l ’accès radial et l’accès femoral quant aux critères d’evaluation de l ’innocuite principal et secondaire ne sont toutefois plus statistiquement significatives. Conclusions : Selon ces observations, les resultats concernant la mortalite ou la survenue d ’un nouvel IM avec onde Q et le risque d’hemorragie de type 3 ou 5 selon la classi fication du BARC indiquent que l’accès radial serait à privilegier lorsque le risque d ’hemorragie est elev e, mais pas lorsqu ’il est faible. Comme il ne s’agissait pas d’une analyse principale, il convient de considerer ces observations comme etant g en eratrices d ’hypothèses

Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT)

Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts. We aimed to compare Supraflex with the standard of care, Xience, an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating, regarding clinical outcomes with a randomised trial in an all-comer population.We did a prospective, randomised, single-blind, multicentre study (TALENT) across 23 centres in Europe (the Netherlands, Poland, the UK, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Italy). Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had one or more coronary artery stenosis of 50% or greater in a native coronary artery, saphenous venous graft, or arterial bypass conduit, and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·25-4·50 mm. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coating and ultra-thin struts (Supraflex) or an everolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer coating (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators by use of a web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the procedure, assessed in an intention-to-treat population. On assumption of 1-year composite endpoint prevalence of 8·3%, a margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xience group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02870140.Between Oct 21, 2016, and July 3, 2017, 1435 patients with 1046 lesions were randomly assigned to Supraflex, of whom 720 received the index procedure, and 715 patients with 1030 lesions were assigned to Xience, all receiving the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 35 patients (4·9 %) in the Supraflex group and in 37 patients (5·3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0·3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1·6%], pnon-inferiority<0·0001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis prevalence, a safety indicator, was low in both groups and did not differ between them.The Supraflex stent was non-inferior to the Xience stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. Supraflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice.European Cardiovascular Research Institute

PRECISE-DAPT score for bleeding risk prediction in patients on dual or single antiplatelet regimens: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY.

AIMS The 5-item PRECISE-DAPT, integrating age, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, creatinine clearance, and prior bleeding, predicts bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation. We sought to assess whether the bleeding risk prediction offered by the PRECISE-DAPT remains valid among patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month onwards after coronary stenting instead of standard DAPT and having or not having centrally-adjudicated bleeding endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS The PRECISE-DAPT was calculated in 14,928 and 7,134 patients from GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trials, respectively. The ability of the score to predict BARC 3 or 5 bleeding was assessed and compared among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental strategy) or standard DAPT (reference strategy) from 1 month after drug-eluting stent implantation. Bleeding endpoints were investigator-reported or centrally-adjudicated in GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY, respectively.At 2 years, the c-indexes for the score among patients treated with the experimental or reference strategy were 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]:0.63-0.71) vs. 0.63 (95% CI:0.59-0.67) in GLOBAL LEADERS (p = 0.27), and 0.67 (95% CI:0.61-0.73) vs. 0.66 (95% CI:0.61-0.72) in GLASSY (p = 0.88). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit using the PRECISE-DAPT to guide bleeding risk assessment under both treatment strategies. Results were consistent between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints and using the simplified 4-item PRECISE-DAPT. CONCLUSIONS The PRECISE-DAPT offers a prediction model that proved similarly effective to predict clinically-relevant bleeding among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month after coronary stenting compared with standard DAPT and appears to be unaffected by the presence or absence of adjudicated bleeding endpoints

Neointimal hyperplasia of ultra-thin stents with microcrystalline sirolimus or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: 6- and 24-month results of the DESSOLVE III OCT study

AIMS: The DESSOLVE III OCT substudy aimed to compare serially neointimal hyperplasia volume obstruction (%VO) between the thin-strut MiStent with early polymer elimination and nine-month sustained drug release from microcrystalline sirolimus and the durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting XIENCE stent at six and 24 months after implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The efficacy endpoint was %VO, calculated as abluminal neointimal volume/stent volume. Thirty-six patients (MiStent 16 patients, 16 lesions; XIENCE 20 patients, 22 lesions) underwent serial OCT evaluation at both six and 24 months. At six months, mean abluminal %VO was significantly lower in the MiStent group than in the XIENCE group (14.54±3.70% vs 19.11±6.70%; p=0.011), whereas the difference in %VO between the two groups decreased at 24 months (20.88±5.72% vs 23.50±7.33%; p=0.24). There was no significant difference in percentage malapposed struts and percentage uncovered struts between the two groups at both time points. CONCLUSIONS: In the serial comparative OCT analysis of the MiStent versus the XIENCE, the MiStent showed a more favourable efficacy for preventing neointimal formation with comparable strut tissue coverage, as compared with the XIENCE at six months, but this difference in %VO decreased at 24 months so that the difference in neointima at 24 months was no longer significant

Influence of Bleeding Risk on Outcomes of Radial and Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial

Background: Radial artery access has been shown to reduce mortality and bleeding events, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Despite this, interventional cardiologists experienced in femoral artery access still prefer that route for percutaneous coronary intervention. Little is known regarding the merits of each vascular access in patients stratified by their risk of bleeding. Methods: Patients from the Global Leaders trial were dichotomized into low or high risk of bleeding by the median of the PRECISE-DAPT score. Clinical outcomes were compared at 30 days. Results: In the overall population, there were no statistical differences between radial and femoral access in the rate of the primary end point, a composite of all-cause mortality, or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-1.15). Radial access was associated with a significantly lower rate of the secondary safety end point, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.84). Compared by bleeding risk strata, in the high bleeding score population, the primary (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.85; P = 0.012; Pinteraction = 0.019) and secondary safety (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.35-0.95; P = 0.030; Pinteraction = 0.631) end points favoured radial access. In the low bleeding score population, however, the differences in the primary and secondary safety end points between radial and femoral artery access were no longer statistically significant. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the outcomes of mortality or new Q-wave MI and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding favour radial access in patients with a high, but not those with a low, risk of bleeding. Because this was not a primary analysis, it should be considered hypothesis generating