TWILIGHT: A Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin Beginning at 3 Months in High-risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

A P2Y12 inhibitor-based monotherapy after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy is emerging as a plausible strategy to decrease bleeding events in high-risk patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT), a randomized double-blind trial, tested this approach by dropping aspirin at 3 months and continuing with ticagrelor monotherapy for an additional 12 months. The study enrolled 9,006 patients, of whom 7,119 who tolerated 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy were randomized after 3 months into two arms: ticagrelor plus placebo and ticagrelor plus aspirin. The primary endpoint of interest, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, occurred less frequently in the experimental arm (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.45–0.68]; p<0.001), whereas the secondary endpoint of ischemic events was similar between the two arms (HR 0.99; 95% CI [0.78–1.25]). Transition from dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of ticagrelor plus aspirin to ticagrelor-based monotherapy in high-risk patients at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a lower risk of bleeding events without an increase in risk of death, MI, or stroke

Intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents

AbstractPurposeGiven the limited salvage options for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES), our high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratory has been performing intracoronary brachytherapy (ICBT) in patients with recurrent ISR of DES. This study analyzes their baseline characteristics and assesses the safety/toxicity of ICBT in this high-risk population.Methods and materialsA retrospective analysis of patients treated with ICBT between September 2012 and December 2014 was performed. Patients with ISR twice in a single location were eligible. Procedural complications included vessel dissection, perforation, tamponade, slow/absent blood flow, and vessel closure. Postprocedural events included myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, congestive heart failure, stroke, bleeding, thrombosis, embolism, dissection, dialysis, or death occurring within 72 hours. A control group of patients with 2 episodes of ISR at 1 location who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without ICBT was identified. Unpaired t tests and χ2 tests were used to compare the groups.ResultsThere were 134 (78%) patients in the ICBT group with 141 treated lesions and 37 (22%) patients in the control group. There was a high prevalence of hyperlipidemia (>95%), hypertension (>95%), and diabetes (>50%) in both groups. The groups were well-balanced with respect to age, sex, and pre-existing medical conditions, with the exception of previous coronary artery bypass graft being more common the ICBT group. Procedural complication rates were low in the control and ICBT groups (0% vs 4.5%, P = .190). Postprocedural event rates were low (<5%) in both groups. Readmission rate at 30 days was 3.7% in the ICBT group and 5.4% in the control group (P = .649).ConclusionsThis is the largest recent known series looking at ICBT for recurrent ISR of DES. ICBT is a safe treatment option with similarly low rates (<5%) of procedural and postprocedural complications compared with percutaneous coronary intervention alone. This study establishes the safety of ICBT in a high-risk patient cohort

Comparison of Propensity Score Methods and Covariate Adjustment: Evaluation in 4 Cardiovascular Studies.

Propensity scores (PS) are an increasingly popular method to adjust for confounding in observational studies. Propensity score methods have theoretical advantages over conventional covariate adjustment, but their relative performance in real-word scenarios is poorly characterized. We used datasets from 4 large-scale cardiovascular observational studies (PROMETHEUS, ADAPT-DES [the Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents], THIN [The Health Improvement Network], and CHARM [Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity]) to compare the performance of conventional covariate adjustment with 4 common PS methods: matching, stratification, inverse probability weighting, and use of PS as a covariate. We found that stratification performed poorly with few outcome events, and inverse probability weighting gave imprecise estimates of treatment effect and undue influence to a small number of observations when substantial confounding was present. Covariate adjustment and matching performed well in all of our examples, although matching tended to give less precise estimates in some cases. PS methods are not necessarily superior to conventional covariate adjustment, and care should be taken to select the most suitable method