| 21. |
- Mehta, Shamir R, et al.
(författare)
-
Complete Revascularization vs Culprit Lesion-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Angina-Related Quality of Life in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction : Results From the COMPLETE Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA cardiology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2380-6583 .- 2380-6591. ; 7:11, s. 1091-1099
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown.OBJECTIVE: To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021.INTERVENTIONS: Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end.RESULTS: Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.
|
|
| 22. |
- Navarese, Eliano Pio, et al.
(författare)
-
Within and beyond 12-month efficacy and safety of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease : two companion network meta-analyses of the 2022 joint clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC), and European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. - : Oxford University Press. - 2055-6837 .- 2055-6845. ; 9:3, s. 271-290
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims To appraise all available antithrombotic treatments within or after 12 months following coronary revascularization and/or acute coronary syndrome in two network meta-analyses. Methods and results Forty-three (N = 189 261 patients) trials within 12 months and 19 (N = 139 086 patients) trials beyond 12 months were included for efficacy/safety endpoints appraisal. Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.88], aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), or aspirin, clopidogrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) were the only treatments associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, compared with aspirin and clopidogrel, without or with greater bleeding risk for the first and the other treatment options, respectively. Beyond 12 months, no strategy lowered mortality; compared with aspirin; the greatest reductions of myocardial infarction (MI) were found with aspirin and clopidogrel (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85) or P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95), especially ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92), and of stroke with VKA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76) or aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76). All treatments increased bleeding except P2Y(12) monotherapy, compared with aspirin. Conclusion Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg monotherapy was the only treatment associated with lower mortality, without bleeding risk trade-off compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Beyond 12 months, P2Y(12) monotherapy, especially ticagrelor 90 mg, was associated with lower MI without bleeding trade-off; aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg most effectively reduced stroke, with a more acceptable bleeding risk than VKA, compared with aspirin. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifiers: CRD42021243985 and CRD42021252398. [GRAPHICS] .
|
|
| 23. |
- Palmerini, Tullio, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk-Benefit of 1-Year DAPT After DES Implantation in Patients Stratified by Bleeding and Ischemic Risk.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1558-3597 .- 0735-1097. ; 78:20, s. 1968-1986
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although a 1-year duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in many patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the evidence supporting this duration is uncertain.The authors investigated the risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs≤6-month DAPT after DES using 2 novel scores to risk stratify bleeding and ischemic events.Ischemic and bleeding risk scores were generated from ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents), a multicenter, international, "all-comers" registry that enrolled 8,665 patients treated with DES. The risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs≤6-month DAPT was then investigated across risk strata from an individual patient data pooled dataset of 7 randomized trials that enrolled 15,083 patients treated with DES.In the derivation cohort, the ischemic score and the bleeding score had c-indexes of 0.76 and 0.66, respectively, and both were well calibrated. In the pooled dataset, no significant difference was apparent in any ischemic endpoint between 1-year and≤6-month DAPT, regardless of the risk strata. In the overall dataset, there was no significant difference in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding between 1-year and≤6-month DAPT; however, among 2,508 patients at increased risk of bleeding, 1-year compared with≤6-month DAPT was associated with greater bleeding (HR: 2.80; 95%CI: 1.12-7.13) without a reduced risk of ischemic events in any risk strata, including those with acute coronary syndromes. These results were consistent in a network meta-analysis.In the present large-scale study, compared with≤6-month DAPT, a 1-year duration of DAPT was not associated with reduced adverse ischemic events in any risk strata (including acute coronary syndromes) but was associated with greater bleeding in patients at increased risk of bleeding.
|
|
| 24. |
- Rinaldi, Michael J, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of Point-of-Care Platelet Function Testing Among Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents (from the ADAPT-DES Study).
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The American journal of cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-1913 .- 0002-9149. ; 123:4, s. 549-557
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We sought to examine if the risk conferred by high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) varies based upon clinical presentation. We examined the relation between HPR (P2Y12 reaction units >208) and adverse ischemic and bleeding events among patients with and without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) from ADAPT-DES; 51.7% of patients had ACS. After clopidogrel loading, ACS patients had higher P2Y12 reaction units and a greater prevalence of HPR based on VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. Of 92 definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) events at 2 years, 65.2% occurred among patients with ACS. HPR was independently associated with ST in ACS patients (adjusted hazard ratio 2.29, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.98) but not with clinically relevant bleeding. Although no statistical interactions between ACS status and these associations were observed, non-ACS patients exhibited an attenuated association between HPR and ST, and an inverse association between HPR and clinically relevant bleeding. HPR was similarly associated with myocardial infarction, but not with overall mortality in ACS and non-ACS patients. In conclusion, the majority of ST events in the 2 years after drug-eluting stent placement occurred in ACS patients; HPR was strongly associated with ST in these patients. These data support current recommendations for using more potent antiplatelet therapies in ACS patients.
|
|
| 25. |
- Sandner, Sigrid, et al.
(författare)
-
Association of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor With Vein Graft Failure After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA. - 1538-3598. ; 328:6, s. 554-562
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear.To compare the risks of vein graft failure and bleeding associated with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 1, 2022, without language restriction.Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of ticagrelor DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin on saphenous vein graft failure.Individual patient data provided by each trial were synthesized into a combined data set for independent analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models were used.The primary analysis assessed the incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per graft (primary outcome) in RCTs comparing ticagrelor DAPT with aspirin. Secondary outcomes were saphenous vein graft failure per patient and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events. A supplementary analysis included RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin.A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1316 patients and 1668 saphenous vein grafts. Of the 871 patients in the primary analysis, 435 received ticagrelor DAPT (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 65 women [14.9%]; 370 men [85.1%]) and 436 received aspirin (median age, 66 years [IQR, 61-73 years]; 63 women [14.5%]; 373 men [85.5%]). Ticagrelor DAPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure (11.2%) per graft than was aspirin (20%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.5% to -3.9%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001) and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per patient (13.2% vs 23.0%, difference, -9.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -4.4%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001). Ticagrelor DAPT (22.1%) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events than was aspirin (8.7%; difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 8.6% to 18.0%]; OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99 to 4.47]; P < .001), but not BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events (1.8% vs 1.8%, difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.69]; P = .99). Compared with aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy was not significantly associated with saphenous vein graft failure (19.3% vs 21.7%, difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -9.1% to 3.9%]; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .44) or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events (8.9% vs 7.3%, difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -2.8% to 6.1%]; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.29]; P = .46).Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, adding ticagrelor to aspirin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of vein graft failure. However, this was accompanied by a significantly increased risk of clinically important bleeding.
|
|
| 26. |
- Sandner, Sigrid, et al.
(författare)
-
One-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled ODIN trial.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 1969-6213. ; 20:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The optimal antiplatelet strategy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear. Adding the P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, to low-dose aspirin for 1 year is associated with a reduction in graft failure, particularly saphenous vein grafts, at the expense of an increased risk of clinically important bleeding. As the risk of thrombotic graft failure and ischaemic events is highest early after CABG surgery, a better risk-to-benefit profile may be attained with short-term dual antiplatelet therapy followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The One Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Ticagrelor in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients (ODIN) trial is a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study of 700 subjects that will evaluate the effect of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus low-dose aspirin after CABG in patients with CCS. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matching placebo, in addition to aspirin 75-150 mg once daily for 1 month; after the first month, antiplatelet therapy will be continued with aspirin alone. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year. The key secondary endpoint is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 bleeding, revascularisation and graft failure at 1 year (net clinical benefit). ODIN will report whether the addition of ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin for 1 month after CABG reduces ischaemic events and provides a net clinical benefit in patients with CCS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05997693).
|
|
| 27. |
- Shahim, Bahira, et al.
(författare)
-
On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity and Ischemic Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: Two-Year Results From ADAPT-DES.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Diabetes mellitus and high platelet reactivity (HPR) on clopidogrel are both associated with increased risk of ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention, but whether the HPR-associated risk of adverse ischemic events differs by diabetes mellitus status is unknown. Methods and Results ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter registry of patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents. HPR was defined as P2Y12 reaction units >208 by the VerifyNow point-of-care assay. Cox multivariable analysis was used to assess whether HPR-associated risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) varied for patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM), non-ITDM, and no diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus and HPR were included in an interaction analysis. Of 8582 patients enrolled, 2429 (28.3%) had diabetes mellitus, of whom 998 (41.1%) had ITDM. Mean P2Y12 reaction units were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus, and HPR was more frequent in patients with diabetes mellitus. HPR was associated with consistently increased 2-year rates of MACE in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (Pinteraction=0.36). A significant interaction was present between HPR and non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus versus ITDM for 2-year MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for non-ITDM, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.39-3.73] versus adjusted HR for ITDM, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.50]; Pinteraction=0.01). Conclusions HPR was more common in patients with diabetes mellitus and was associated with an increased risk of MACE in both patients with and without diabetes mellitus. In patients with diabetes mellitus, a more pronounced effect of HPR on MACE was present in lower-risk non-ITDM patients than in higher-risk patients with ITDM. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00638794; Unique identifier: NCT00638794. ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents).
|
|
| 28. |
- Sharma, Abhinav, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Events Classification (CEC) in Clinical Trials : Report on the Current Landscape and Future Directions - Proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 246, s. 93-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation.Observations: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: 1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; 2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; 3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and 4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs.Conclusions and Relevance: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.
|
|
| 29. |
- Spitzer, Ernest, et al.
(författare)
-
Independence of clinical events committees : A consensus statement from clinical research organizations
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 248, s. 120-129
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging.Methods This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance.Results An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial.Conclusions This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.
|
|
| 30. |
- Urban, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 140:3, s. 240-261
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
