| 1. |
- Hiatt, William R, et al.
(författare)
-
Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 376, s. 32-40
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease is considered to be a manifestation of systemic atherosclerosis with associated adverse cardiovascular and limb events. Data from previous trials have suggested that patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those receiving aspirin. We wanted to compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor, a potent antiplatelet agent, in patients with peripheral artery disease.METHODS: In this double-blind, event-driven trial, we randomly assigned 13,885 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease to receive monotherapy with ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg once daily). Patients were eligible if they had an ankle-brachial index (ABI) of 0.80 or less or had undergone previous revascularization of the lower limbs. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety end point was major bleeding. The median follow-up was 30 months.RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 72% were men; 43% were enrolled on the basis of the ABI and 57% on the basis of previous revascularization. The mean baseline ABI in all patients was 0.71, 76.6% of the patients had claudication, and 4.6% had critical limb ischemia. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 751 of 6930 patients (10.8%) receiving ticagrelor and in 740 of 6955 (10.6%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.13; P=0.65). In each group, acute limb ischemia occurred in 1.7% of the patients (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.33; P=0.85) and major bleeding in 1.6% (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.43; P=0.49).CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, ticagrelor was not shown to be superior to clopidogrel for the reduction of cardiovascular events. Major bleeding occurred at similar rates among the patients in the two trial groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; EUCLID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01732822 .).
|
|
| 2. |
- Attar, Rubina, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes After Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Peripheral Artery Disease (from the TRACER, TRILOGY-ACS, APPRAISE-2, and PLATO Clinical Trials)
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9149 .- 1879-1913. ; 178, s. 11-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at risk for recurrent adverse events, and multiple reports suggest that this risk is increased in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). The aim of this article was to investigate cardiovascular outcomes in patients with DM presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status. Data were derived from 4 randomized post-ACS trials (PLATO [Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes], APPRAISE-2 p Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2], TRILOGY [Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage], and TRACER [Thrombin Receptor Agonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome]). Using Cox regression analysis, we investigated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke and the individual components of MACE and all-cause mortality in patients with DM, presenting with ACS, stratified by PAD status as the risk modifier. This study included 15,387 patients with a diagnosis of DM and ACS, of whom 1,751 had an additional diagnosis of PAD. PAD was associated with more than doubled rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81 to 2.27), all-cause mortality (HR 2.48, 95% CI 2.14 to 2.87), cardiovascular mortality (HR 2.42, 95% CI 2.04 to 2.86), and MI (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.38). Patients with both PAD and DM were also more optimally treated with antihypertensive, antidiabetic, and statin medication at baseline. In conclusion, this analysis of 4 major post-ACS trials showed that patients with DM and PAD had a substantially higher risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and MI despite being optimally treated with guideline-based therapies.
|
|
| 3. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
