User login
Remote ischemic conditioning in STEMI, RIP
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
PARIS – Remote ischemic condition, long viewed as the best hope for the next breakthrough in improved clinical outcomes in acute MI, is now dead as a broad therapeutic strategy as a result of the resoundingly negative results of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, PhD, declared at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I would not be quite honest if I did not admit that we were somewhat disappointed in these results, given the promising results we have seen in the majority of the proof-of-concept studies,” added Dr. Bøtker, professor of cardiovascular medicine and interventional cardiology at Aarhus (Denmark) University.
Remote ischemic conditioning entails imposing brief cycles of ischemia and reperfusion on an arm or leg prior to or during reperfusion of an occluded artery in the setting of acute MI in order to provide cardioprotection against reperfusion injury. In the small proof-of-concept studies, it reduced infarct size and suggested the possibility of better clinical outcomes. But the four-country, prospective, single-blind, randomized CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, involving 5,401 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), showed nary a glimmer of the hoped-for clinical benefits from four cycles of 5 minutes of ischemia and 5 minutes of deflation of an automated arm-cuff device.
The primary outcome, a composite of the 12-month rate of cardiac death or heart failure hospitalization, occurred in 9.4% of the remote ischemic conditioning group, which wasn’t significantly different from the 8.6% rate in controls. Nor were there any significant between-group differences in infarct size at 48 hours based upon high-sensitivity troponin T measurement or any of the other prespecified secondary study endpoints.
Discussant Bernard J. Gersh, MB, ChB, PhD, a long-time fervent advocate of remote ischemic conditioning as an important potential advance in MI care, wasn’t an investigator in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI, which he characterized as “very well executed, large, and pivotal.”
“The results of this trial are emphatic, and there would appear to be no role for routine remote ischemic conditioning in the management of most – and I would emphasize ‘most,’ perhaps not all, but most – patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. The results may not be what we’d hoped to hear, and I share Dr. Bøtker’s disappointment, but the data appear to be conclusive in regard to the majority of the primary PCI population. It is what it is. The only remaining questions are why the result were almost completely universally neutral in CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI after so many positive experimental models and proof-of-concept studies, and whether are there other patient subsets who might benefit,” according to Dr. Gersh, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Pointing to the 30-day cardiac death rate of about 2% in the trial, he commented that the management of STEMI has gotten so good that it becomes very difficult to demonstrate a difference with remote ischemic conditioning, even if a small benefit is actually present.
“I think that’s the era that we now live in,” Dr. Gersh said.
However, he is not ready to throw the final shovelful of dirt on the grave of remote ischemic conditioning.
“There is a group where perhaps there may be a therapeutic benefit: STEMI patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and no cardiac arrest,” he said.
He was a coauthor of a study analyzing the impact of an American Heart Association quality improvement project involving nearly 24,000 STEMI patients. Those with cardiogenic shock but no cardiac arrest had a 23.4% in-hospital mortality (JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Sep 24;11[18]:1824-33).
“We know that cardiogenic shock is an evolving process, and with this 23% mortality, perhaps myocardial salvage may still make a difference,” Dr. Gersh said.
The full results of CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI have been published in the Lancet (2019 Oct 19;394[10207]:1415-24). In an accompanying editorial entitled “The Broken Promise of Remote Ischemic Conditioning,” Andrew Peter Vanezis, MD, of Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton, Alta., said that “the role of remote ischemic conditioning in improving the lives of patients with STEMI has been thrown sharply into question. ... It might be time to abandon this form of cardioprotection in favor of more effective therapies” (Lancet. 2019 Oct 19;394:1389-90).
The CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI study was funded by the British Heart Foundation, University College London, the Danish Innovation Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and TrygFonden. Dr. Bøtker reported a financial relationship with CellAegis.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Novel cardiac troponin protocol rapidly rules out MI
PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.
“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.
The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.
HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.
In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.
Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.
The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.
The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.
Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.
The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)
The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”
Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”
“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.
“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.
However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”
He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.
Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.
The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.
Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.
Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.
“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.
The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.
HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.
In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.
Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.
The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.
The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.
Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.
The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)
The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”
Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”
“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.
“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.
However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”
He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.
Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.
The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.
Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.
Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.
“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.
The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.
HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.
In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.
Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.
The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.
The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.
Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.
The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)
The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”
Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”
“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.
“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.
However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”
He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.
Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.
The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.
Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.
Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Smoking, inactivity most powerful post-MI lifestyle risk factors
PARIS – All lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors aren’t equal in power when it comes to secondary prevention after a first acute MI, according to a massive Swedish registry study.
Insufficient physical activity and current smoking were consistently the strongest risk factors for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and other key adverse outcomes in an analysis from the SWEDEHEART registry. The study included 65,002 patients discharged after a first MI and 325,010 age- and sex-matched controls with no prior MI followed for a median of 5.5 years and maximum of 12, Emil Hagstrom, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Strongest lifestyle risk factors
The study examined the long-term relative importance of control of six major lifestyle risk factors for secondary cardiovascular prevention: current smoking, insufficient physical activity, blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or more, obesity, a fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL, and an LDL cholesterol of 70 mg/dL or more. Notably, two risk factors that physicians often emphasize in working with their patients with known coronary heart disease – an elevated LDL cholesterol and obesity – barely moved the needle. Out of the six risk factors scrutinized, those two consistently showed the weakest association with long-term risk of adverse outcomes. Occupying the middle ground in terms of predictive strength were hypertension and elevated blood glucose, according to Dr. Hagstrom, a cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
Risk factor status was assessed 6-10 weeks post MI. Insufficient physical activity was defined as not engaging in at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise on at least 5 days per week. And when Dr. Hagstrom recalculated the risk of adverse outcomes using an LDL cholesterol threshold of 55 mg/dL rather than using 70 mg/dL, as recommended in new ESC secondary prevention guidelines released during the congress, the study results remained unchanged.
Cumulative effects
A key SWEDEHEART finding underscoring the importance of lifestyle in secondary prevention was that a linear stepwise relationship existed between the number of risk factors at target levels and the risk of all of the various adverse outcomes assessed, including stroke and heart failure hospitalization as well as all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major bleeding.
Moreover, patients with none of the six risk factors outside of target when assessed after their MI had the same risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke as the matched controls.
For example, in an analysis adjusted for comorbid cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia, post-MI patients with zero risk factors had the same long-term risk of cardiovascular mortality as controls without a history of MI at baseline. With one risk factor not at target, a patient had a 41% increased risk compared with controls, a statistically significant difference. With two out-of-whack risk factors, the risk climbed to 102%. With three, 185%. With four risk factors not at target, the all-cause mortality risk jumped to 291%. And patients with more than four of the six risk factors not at target had a 409% greater risk of all-cause mortality than controls who had never had a heart attack.
When Dr. Hagstrom stratified subjects by age at baseline – up to 55, 56-64, 65-70, and 70-75 years – he discovered that, regardless of age, patients with zero risk factors had the same risk of all-cause mortality and other adverse outcomes as controls. However, when risk factors were present, younger patients consistently had a higher risk of all adverse outcomes than older patients with the same number of risk factors. When asked for an explanation of this phenomenon, Dr. Hagstrom noted that younger patients with multiple risk factors have a longer time to be exposed to and accumulate risk.
Follow-up of the study cohort will continue for years to come, the cardiologist promised.
At an ESC congress highlights session that closed out the meeting, Eva Prescott, MD, put the SWEDEHEART study at the top of her list of important developments in preventive cardiology arising from the congress.
“This is an excellent national registry I think we’re all envious of,” commented Dr. Prescott, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University. “The conclusion of this registry-based data, I think, is that lifestyle really remains at the core of prevention of cardiovascular events still today.”
The SWEDEHEART study analysis was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Hagstrom reported serving as a consultant to or receiving speakers’ fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
PARIS – All lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors aren’t equal in power when it comes to secondary prevention after a first acute MI, according to a massive Swedish registry study.
Insufficient physical activity and current smoking were consistently the strongest risk factors for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and other key adverse outcomes in an analysis from the SWEDEHEART registry. The study included 65,002 patients discharged after a first MI and 325,010 age- and sex-matched controls with no prior MI followed for a median of 5.5 years and maximum of 12, Emil Hagstrom, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Strongest lifestyle risk factors
The study examined the long-term relative importance of control of six major lifestyle risk factors for secondary cardiovascular prevention: current smoking, insufficient physical activity, blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or more, obesity, a fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL, and an LDL cholesterol of 70 mg/dL or more. Notably, two risk factors that physicians often emphasize in working with their patients with known coronary heart disease – an elevated LDL cholesterol and obesity – barely moved the needle. Out of the six risk factors scrutinized, those two consistently showed the weakest association with long-term risk of adverse outcomes. Occupying the middle ground in terms of predictive strength were hypertension and elevated blood glucose, according to Dr. Hagstrom, a cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
Risk factor status was assessed 6-10 weeks post MI. Insufficient physical activity was defined as not engaging in at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise on at least 5 days per week. And when Dr. Hagstrom recalculated the risk of adverse outcomes using an LDL cholesterol threshold of 55 mg/dL rather than using 70 mg/dL, as recommended in new ESC secondary prevention guidelines released during the congress, the study results remained unchanged.
Cumulative effects
A key SWEDEHEART finding underscoring the importance of lifestyle in secondary prevention was that a linear stepwise relationship existed between the number of risk factors at target levels and the risk of all of the various adverse outcomes assessed, including stroke and heart failure hospitalization as well as all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major bleeding.
Moreover, patients with none of the six risk factors outside of target when assessed after their MI had the same risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke as the matched controls.
For example, in an analysis adjusted for comorbid cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia, post-MI patients with zero risk factors had the same long-term risk of cardiovascular mortality as controls without a history of MI at baseline. With one risk factor not at target, a patient had a 41% increased risk compared with controls, a statistically significant difference. With two out-of-whack risk factors, the risk climbed to 102%. With three, 185%. With four risk factors not at target, the all-cause mortality risk jumped to 291%. And patients with more than four of the six risk factors not at target had a 409% greater risk of all-cause mortality than controls who had never had a heart attack.
When Dr. Hagstrom stratified subjects by age at baseline – up to 55, 56-64, 65-70, and 70-75 years – he discovered that, regardless of age, patients with zero risk factors had the same risk of all-cause mortality and other adverse outcomes as controls. However, when risk factors were present, younger patients consistently had a higher risk of all adverse outcomes than older patients with the same number of risk factors. When asked for an explanation of this phenomenon, Dr. Hagstrom noted that younger patients with multiple risk factors have a longer time to be exposed to and accumulate risk.
Follow-up of the study cohort will continue for years to come, the cardiologist promised.
At an ESC congress highlights session that closed out the meeting, Eva Prescott, MD, put the SWEDEHEART study at the top of her list of important developments in preventive cardiology arising from the congress.
“This is an excellent national registry I think we’re all envious of,” commented Dr. Prescott, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University. “The conclusion of this registry-based data, I think, is that lifestyle really remains at the core of prevention of cardiovascular events still today.”
The SWEDEHEART study analysis was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Hagstrom reported serving as a consultant to or receiving speakers’ fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
PARIS – All lifestyle-related cardiovascular risk factors aren’t equal in power when it comes to secondary prevention after a first acute MI, according to a massive Swedish registry study.
Insufficient physical activity and current smoking were consistently the strongest risk factors for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and other key adverse outcomes in an analysis from the SWEDEHEART registry. The study included 65,002 patients discharged after a first MI and 325,010 age- and sex-matched controls with no prior MI followed for a median of 5.5 years and maximum of 12, Emil Hagstrom, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Strongest lifestyle risk factors
The study examined the long-term relative importance of control of six major lifestyle risk factors for secondary cardiovascular prevention: current smoking, insufficient physical activity, blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or more, obesity, a fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL, and an LDL cholesterol of 70 mg/dL or more. Notably, two risk factors that physicians often emphasize in working with their patients with known coronary heart disease – an elevated LDL cholesterol and obesity – barely moved the needle. Out of the six risk factors scrutinized, those two consistently showed the weakest association with long-term risk of adverse outcomes. Occupying the middle ground in terms of predictive strength were hypertension and elevated blood glucose, according to Dr. Hagstrom, a cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.
Risk factor status was assessed 6-10 weeks post MI. Insufficient physical activity was defined as not engaging in at least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise on at least 5 days per week. And when Dr. Hagstrom recalculated the risk of adverse outcomes using an LDL cholesterol threshold of 55 mg/dL rather than using 70 mg/dL, as recommended in new ESC secondary prevention guidelines released during the congress, the study results remained unchanged.
Cumulative effects
A key SWEDEHEART finding underscoring the importance of lifestyle in secondary prevention was that a linear stepwise relationship existed between the number of risk factors at target levels and the risk of all of the various adverse outcomes assessed, including stroke and heart failure hospitalization as well as all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major bleeding.
Moreover, patients with none of the six risk factors outside of target when assessed after their MI had the same risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke as the matched controls.
For example, in an analysis adjusted for comorbid cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia, post-MI patients with zero risk factors had the same long-term risk of cardiovascular mortality as controls without a history of MI at baseline. With one risk factor not at target, a patient had a 41% increased risk compared with controls, a statistically significant difference. With two out-of-whack risk factors, the risk climbed to 102%. With three, 185%. With four risk factors not at target, the all-cause mortality risk jumped to 291%. And patients with more than four of the six risk factors not at target had a 409% greater risk of all-cause mortality than controls who had never had a heart attack.
When Dr. Hagstrom stratified subjects by age at baseline – up to 55, 56-64, 65-70, and 70-75 years – he discovered that, regardless of age, patients with zero risk factors had the same risk of all-cause mortality and other adverse outcomes as controls. However, when risk factors were present, younger patients consistently had a higher risk of all adverse outcomes than older patients with the same number of risk factors. When asked for an explanation of this phenomenon, Dr. Hagstrom noted that younger patients with multiple risk factors have a longer time to be exposed to and accumulate risk.
Follow-up of the study cohort will continue for years to come, the cardiologist promised.
At an ESC congress highlights session that closed out the meeting, Eva Prescott, MD, put the SWEDEHEART study at the top of her list of important developments in preventive cardiology arising from the congress.
“This is an excellent national registry I think we’re all envious of,” commented Dr. Prescott, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University. “The conclusion of this registry-based data, I think, is that lifestyle really remains at the core of prevention of cardiovascular events still today.”
The SWEDEHEART study analysis was funded free of commercial support. Dr. Hagstrom reported serving as a consultant to or receiving speakers’ fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Cardiotoxicity after checkpoint inhibitor treatment seen early, linked to elevated biomarkers
PHILADELPHIA – , and occurred more frequently in patients with elevated biomarkers, in a retrospective cohort study reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The findings support monitoring of cardiac biomarkers in the initial phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment to identify patient at high cardiac risk, according to Kalyan R. Chitturi, DO, a resident physician with the DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, who presented the results.
“It’s the early period that warrants the closest monitoring, as within the first 30-40 days, there’s higher risk,” Dr. Chitturi said in an interview. “When there was a biomarker elevation, it markedly increased the risk of MACE, warranting a closer vigilance during that time period.”
The retrospective study conducted by Dr. Chitturi and colleagues included a total of 252 patients with lung cancer who had been treated at one of seven different sites in Houston Methodist Cancer Center between Aug. 1, 2015, and Aug. 1, 2018.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, compared with other lung cancer therapies, with incidences of 13.3% and 10.3%, respectively (P = .632), the investigators found.
However, MACE did occur earlier in the checkpoint inhibitor group, at a median time to event of 40 days, compared with 118 days in the patients not treated with checkpoint inhibitors, they found.
Risk of MACE with checkpoint inhibitor treatment was increased in patients with elevated troponin (hazard ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.21; P = .017) or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (HR, 5.77; 95% CI, 2.70-12.35; P less than .001), according to multivariate logistic regression analysis results.
These results suggest biomarkers such as cardiac troponin and brain natriuretic peptide are warranted to monitor patients in the early phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to Dr. Chitturi. “In the cost-benefit ratio of often-lethal MACE, it’s well worth it to collect these,” he said in the interview.
The results corroborate findings from some other recent studies, he noted. These include a recent study that linked elevated serum troponin to myocarditis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Apr 24;71[16]:1755-64).
Dr. Chitturi and coauthors reported no disclosures related to their presentation at the HFSA meeting.
SOURCE: Chitturi KR et al. HFSA 2019, Abstract 127.
PHILADELPHIA – , and occurred more frequently in patients with elevated biomarkers, in a retrospective cohort study reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The findings support monitoring of cardiac biomarkers in the initial phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment to identify patient at high cardiac risk, according to Kalyan R. Chitturi, DO, a resident physician with the DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, who presented the results.
“It’s the early period that warrants the closest monitoring, as within the first 30-40 days, there’s higher risk,” Dr. Chitturi said in an interview. “When there was a biomarker elevation, it markedly increased the risk of MACE, warranting a closer vigilance during that time period.”
The retrospective study conducted by Dr. Chitturi and colleagues included a total of 252 patients with lung cancer who had been treated at one of seven different sites in Houston Methodist Cancer Center between Aug. 1, 2015, and Aug. 1, 2018.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, compared with other lung cancer therapies, with incidences of 13.3% and 10.3%, respectively (P = .632), the investigators found.
However, MACE did occur earlier in the checkpoint inhibitor group, at a median time to event of 40 days, compared with 118 days in the patients not treated with checkpoint inhibitors, they found.
Risk of MACE with checkpoint inhibitor treatment was increased in patients with elevated troponin (hazard ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.21; P = .017) or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (HR, 5.77; 95% CI, 2.70-12.35; P less than .001), according to multivariate logistic regression analysis results.
These results suggest biomarkers such as cardiac troponin and brain natriuretic peptide are warranted to monitor patients in the early phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to Dr. Chitturi. “In the cost-benefit ratio of often-lethal MACE, it’s well worth it to collect these,” he said in the interview.
The results corroborate findings from some other recent studies, he noted. These include a recent study that linked elevated serum troponin to myocarditis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Apr 24;71[16]:1755-64).
Dr. Chitturi and coauthors reported no disclosures related to their presentation at the HFSA meeting.
SOURCE: Chitturi KR et al. HFSA 2019, Abstract 127.
PHILADELPHIA – , and occurred more frequently in patients with elevated biomarkers, in a retrospective cohort study reported at the annual scientific meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America.
The findings support monitoring of cardiac biomarkers in the initial phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment to identify patient at high cardiac risk, according to Kalyan R. Chitturi, DO, a resident physician with the DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, who presented the results.
“It’s the early period that warrants the closest monitoring, as within the first 30-40 days, there’s higher risk,” Dr. Chitturi said in an interview. “When there was a biomarker elevation, it markedly increased the risk of MACE, warranting a closer vigilance during that time period.”
The retrospective study conducted by Dr. Chitturi and colleagues included a total of 252 patients with lung cancer who had been treated at one of seven different sites in Houston Methodist Cancer Center between Aug. 1, 2015, and Aug. 1, 2018.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, compared with other lung cancer therapies, with incidences of 13.3% and 10.3%, respectively (P = .632), the investigators found.
However, MACE did occur earlier in the checkpoint inhibitor group, at a median time to event of 40 days, compared with 118 days in the patients not treated with checkpoint inhibitors, they found.
Risk of MACE with checkpoint inhibitor treatment was increased in patients with elevated troponin (hazard ratio, 2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-5.21; P = .017) or elevated brain natriuretic peptide (HR, 5.77; 95% CI, 2.70-12.35; P less than .001), according to multivariate logistic regression analysis results.
These results suggest biomarkers such as cardiac troponin and brain natriuretic peptide are warranted to monitor patients in the early phase of checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to Dr. Chitturi. “In the cost-benefit ratio of often-lethal MACE, it’s well worth it to collect these,” he said in the interview.
The results corroborate findings from some other recent studies, he noted. These include a recent study that linked elevated serum troponin to myocarditis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Apr 24;71[16]:1755-64).
Dr. Chitturi and coauthors reported no disclosures related to their presentation at the HFSA meeting.
SOURCE: Chitturi KR et al. HFSA 2019, Abstract 127.
REPORTING FROM HFSA 2019
Dual therapy best for AFib with ACS no matter the treatment strategy
SAN FRANCISCO – Anticoagulation with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin provides superior safety and similar efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation who have an acute coronary syndrome, compared with regimens that include vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, or both.
The findings come from a prespecified analysis of data from the AUGUSTUS trial presented by Stephan Windecker, MD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
“This study adds very important information [to the notion] that triple therapy in the setting of atrial fibrillation and PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] is really not the way to go,” Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, FACC, executive director of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation’s Clinical Trials Center, said during a media briefing.
In the recent multicenter AUGUSTUS trial, Dr. Windecker, of the department of cardiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, and colleagues found that among 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and no significant differences in ischemic events compared with regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1509-24). For this prespecified analysis, the researchers used a 2×2 factorial design to compare apixaban with VKA and aspirin with placebo in the AUGUSTUS trial participants with ACS treated medically (group 1; 1,097 patients, or 24%), those with ACS treated with PCI (group 2; 1,714 patients, or 37%), and those undergoing elective PCI (group 3; 1,784 patients, or 39%). The outcomes of interest were bleeding, death, and hospitalization as well as death and ischemic events by antithrombotic strategy in the study participants. This marks the only trial in the field that included patients with ACS managed medically, Dr. Windecker said.
At baseline, the median age of patients was 71 years, 30% were female, 36% had diabetes, and 45% had heart failure. Patients managed medically were younger (a median age of 70) and more frequently female; 57% presented with heart failure. The groups had identical CHA2DS2VASc scores (4), and very similar HAS-BLED scores (2 in groups 1 and 2, and 3 in group 3).
Apixaban compared with VKA showed lower International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis–defined major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.44), group 2 (HR, 0.68), and group 3 (HR, 0.82) (P for interaction = .052). Apixaban compared with VKA reduced death or hospitalization among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.71), group 2 (HR 0.88), and group 3 (HR, 0.87) (P for interaction = .345). Compared with VKA, apixaban resulted in a similar effect on death and ischemic events among patients in all three treatment groups (P for interaction = .356).
Compared with placebo, aspirin had a higher rate of bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 1.49), group 2 (HR, 2.02) and group 3 (HR, 1.91) (P for interaction = .479). For the same comparison, there was no difference in outcomes among the three groups for the composite of death or hospitalization and death and ischemic events.
“The overall results of the AUGUSTUS trial are consistent across the three clinically important subgroups,” Dr. Windecker said. The reasons why patients received medical therapy remain unclear, “because it was at the physician’s discretion as to whether they were treated medically or underwent PCI,” he said. “The proportion very much reflects our clinical practice, where 20%-25% of patients are treated medically. What was surprising for me is that I would have anticipated there would be more elderly patients with comorbidities, but I did anticipate that there would be more female patients (in this subgroup).”
Robert A. Harrington, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who served on the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for the trial, noted that the patients with atrial fibrillation represent 7%-10% of all ACS patients, “so it’s a big population,” he said. “What’s been disappointing is that none of the trials have been big enough to uncouple the bleeding vs. ischemic issue. We don’t know the answer for how long do you need the triple therapy versus when you can switch to the double therapy.”
Dr. Windecker said that the optimal duration of short-term aspirin remains unclear in this patient population. “Whether there is a benefit of giving aspirin for 2 weeks or 4 weeks remains unanswered,” he said. “Triple therapy is not the way to go, but we need to fine-tune, and probably individualize, which patients may benefit from a certain duration of aspirin.”
The study results were published online at the time of presentation (Circulation 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043308.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc. Dr. Windecker reported having received institutional research and educational grants to Bern University Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, CSL Behring, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Polares, and Sinomed. His coauthors reported having numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical and device industries.
SOURCE: Windecker S. TCT 2019, Late-Breaking Trials 1 session.
SAN FRANCISCO – Anticoagulation with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin provides superior safety and similar efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation who have an acute coronary syndrome, compared with regimens that include vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, or both.
The findings come from a prespecified analysis of data from the AUGUSTUS trial presented by Stephan Windecker, MD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
“This study adds very important information [to the notion] that triple therapy in the setting of atrial fibrillation and PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] is really not the way to go,” Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, FACC, executive director of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation’s Clinical Trials Center, said during a media briefing.
In the recent multicenter AUGUSTUS trial, Dr. Windecker, of the department of cardiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, and colleagues found that among 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and no significant differences in ischemic events compared with regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1509-24). For this prespecified analysis, the researchers used a 2×2 factorial design to compare apixaban with VKA and aspirin with placebo in the AUGUSTUS trial participants with ACS treated medically (group 1; 1,097 patients, or 24%), those with ACS treated with PCI (group 2; 1,714 patients, or 37%), and those undergoing elective PCI (group 3; 1,784 patients, or 39%). The outcomes of interest were bleeding, death, and hospitalization as well as death and ischemic events by antithrombotic strategy in the study participants. This marks the only trial in the field that included patients with ACS managed medically, Dr. Windecker said.
At baseline, the median age of patients was 71 years, 30% were female, 36% had diabetes, and 45% had heart failure. Patients managed medically were younger (a median age of 70) and more frequently female; 57% presented with heart failure. The groups had identical CHA2DS2VASc scores (4), and very similar HAS-BLED scores (2 in groups 1 and 2, and 3 in group 3).
Apixaban compared with VKA showed lower International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis–defined major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.44), group 2 (HR, 0.68), and group 3 (HR, 0.82) (P for interaction = .052). Apixaban compared with VKA reduced death or hospitalization among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.71), group 2 (HR 0.88), and group 3 (HR, 0.87) (P for interaction = .345). Compared with VKA, apixaban resulted in a similar effect on death and ischemic events among patients in all three treatment groups (P for interaction = .356).
Compared with placebo, aspirin had a higher rate of bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 1.49), group 2 (HR, 2.02) and group 3 (HR, 1.91) (P for interaction = .479). For the same comparison, there was no difference in outcomes among the three groups for the composite of death or hospitalization and death and ischemic events.
“The overall results of the AUGUSTUS trial are consistent across the three clinically important subgroups,” Dr. Windecker said. The reasons why patients received medical therapy remain unclear, “because it was at the physician’s discretion as to whether they were treated medically or underwent PCI,” he said. “The proportion very much reflects our clinical practice, where 20%-25% of patients are treated medically. What was surprising for me is that I would have anticipated there would be more elderly patients with comorbidities, but I did anticipate that there would be more female patients (in this subgroup).”
Robert A. Harrington, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who served on the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for the trial, noted that the patients with atrial fibrillation represent 7%-10% of all ACS patients, “so it’s a big population,” he said. “What’s been disappointing is that none of the trials have been big enough to uncouple the bleeding vs. ischemic issue. We don’t know the answer for how long do you need the triple therapy versus when you can switch to the double therapy.”
Dr. Windecker said that the optimal duration of short-term aspirin remains unclear in this patient population. “Whether there is a benefit of giving aspirin for 2 weeks or 4 weeks remains unanswered,” he said. “Triple therapy is not the way to go, but we need to fine-tune, and probably individualize, which patients may benefit from a certain duration of aspirin.”
The study results were published online at the time of presentation (Circulation 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043308.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc. Dr. Windecker reported having received institutional research and educational grants to Bern University Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, CSL Behring, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Polares, and Sinomed. His coauthors reported having numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical and device industries.
SOURCE: Windecker S. TCT 2019, Late-Breaking Trials 1 session.
SAN FRANCISCO – Anticoagulation with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin provides superior safety and similar efficacy in patients with atrial fibrillation who have an acute coronary syndrome, compared with regimens that include vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, or both.
The findings come from a prespecified analysis of data from the AUGUSTUS trial presented by Stephan Windecker, MD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
“This study adds very important information [to the notion] that triple therapy in the setting of atrial fibrillation and PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention] is really not the way to go,” Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, FACC, executive director of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation’s Clinical Trials Center, said during a media briefing.
In the recent multicenter AUGUSTUS trial, Dr. Windecker, of the department of cardiology at Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, and colleagues found that among 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and a recent acute coronary syndrome or PCI treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor, apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding, fewer hospitalizations, and no significant differences in ischemic events compared with regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), aspirin, or both (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1509-24). For this prespecified analysis, the researchers used a 2×2 factorial design to compare apixaban with VKA and aspirin with placebo in the AUGUSTUS trial participants with ACS treated medically (group 1; 1,097 patients, or 24%), those with ACS treated with PCI (group 2; 1,714 patients, or 37%), and those undergoing elective PCI (group 3; 1,784 patients, or 39%). The outcomes of interest were bleeding, death, and hospitalization as well as death and ischemic events by antithrombotic strategy in the study participants. This marks the only trial in the field that included patients with ACS managed medically, Dr. Windecker said.
At baseline, the median age of patients was 71 years, 30% were female, 36% had diabetes, and 45% had heart failure. Patients managed medically were younger (a median age of 70) and more frequently female; 57% presented with heart failure. The groups had identical CHA2DS2VASc scores (4), and very similar HAS-BLED scores (2 in groups 1 and 2, and 3 in group 3).
Apixaban compared with VKA showed lower International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis–defined major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.44), group 2 (HR, 0.68), and group 3 (HR, 0.82) (P for interaction = .052). Apixaban compared with VKA reduced death or hospitalization among patients in group 1 (HR, 0.71), group 2 (HR 0.88), and group 3 (HR, 0.87) (P for interaction = .345). Compared with VKA, apixaban resulted in a similar effect on death and ischemic events among patients in all three treatment groups (P for interaction = .356).
Compared with placebo, aspirin had a higher rate of bleeding among patients in group 1 (HR, 1.49), group 2 (HR, 2.02) and group 3 (HR, 1.91) (P for interaction = .479). For the same comparison, there was no difference in outcomes among the three groups for the composite of death or hospitalization and death and ischemic events.
“The overall results of the AUGUSTUS trial are consistent across the three clinically important subgroups,” Dr. Windecker said. The reasons why patients received medical therapy remain unclear, “because it was at the physician’s discretion as to whether they were treated medically or underwent PCI,” he said. “The proportion very much reflects our clinical practice, where 20%-25% of patients are treated medically. What was surprising for me is that I would have anticipated there would be more elderly patients with comorbidities, but I did anticipate that there would be more female patients (in this subgroup).”
Robert A. Harrington, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Stanford (Calif.) University who served on the Data Safety and Monitoring Board for the trial, noted that the patients with atrial fibrillation represent 7%-10% of all ACS patients, “so it’s a big population,” he said. “What’s been disappointing is that none of the trials have been big enough to uncouple the bleeding vs. ischemic issue. We don’t know the answer for how long do you need the triple therapy versus when you can switch to the double therapy.”
Dr. Windecker said that the optimal duration of short-term aspirin remains unclear in this patient population. “Whether there is a benefit of giving aspirin for 2 weeks or 4 weeks remains unanswered,” he said. “Triple therapy is not the way to go, but we need to fine-tune, and probably individualize, which patients may benefit from a certain duration of aspirin.”
The study results were published online at the time of presentation (Circulation 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043308.
AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc. Dr. Windecker reported having received institutional research and educational grants to Bern University Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, CSL Behring, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Polares, and Sinomed. His coauthors reported having numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical and device industries.
SOURCE: Windecker S. TCT 2019, Late-Breaking Trials 1 session.
AT TCT 2019
Skip supplemental O2 in nonhypoxic ACS
PARIS – A massive randomized trial that included all New Zealanders with a suspected acute coronary syndrome during a 2-year period has provided definitive evidence that giving high-flow supplemental oxygen to those who are nonhypoxemic is of no clinical benefit, although it wasn’t harmful, either.
“Patients who have a normal blood oxygen saturation level are very unlikely to benefit from supplemental oxygen,” Ralph Stewart, MbChB, said in presenting the results of the NZOTACS (New Zealand Oxygen Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“It’s amazing that oxygen has been used in patients with suspected heart attack for over 50 years, and during that time there’s never been definite evidence that it improves outcomes. And more recently some have even suggested giving high-level oxygen might actually cause harm,” observed Dr. Stewart, a cardiologist at Auckland City Hospital and the University of Auckland (New Zealand).
The primary outcome in NZOTACS was 30-day all-cause mortality. In the overall study population, the rate was 3.0% in the group assigned to the routine high-flow oxygen protocol and closely similar at 3.1% in those randomized to the conservative oxygen strategy. And there was reassuringly no signal that the liberal oxygen protocol caused any harm.
To conduct this cluster randomized crossover trial, Dr. Stewart and his coinvestigators divided New Zealand into quadrants and, taking advantage of the coordinated health care systems operative in the nation of 4.8 million, they arranged for all ambulances, emergency departments, and hospitals in each geographic region to utilize each supplemental oxygen strategy for a total of 12 months.
In the liberal oxygen strategy, patients with suspected ACS on the basis of ischemic chest pain or ECG changes received high-flow oxygen by face mask at 6-8 L/min regardless of their blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) level. The oxygen was stopped only upon clinical resolution of myocardial ischemia. In contrast, in the low-oxygen protocol, supplemental oxygen was reserved for patients with an initial SaO2 below 90%, with a target SaO2 of 90%-94%.
Roughly 90% of the nearly 41,000 study participants had a normal SaO2 of 90% or more. Their 30-day mortality was 2.1% with the high-oxygen protocol and similar at 1.9% with the conservative oxygen protocol.
In contrast, there was a suggestion of benefit for the routine liberal oxygen strategy in the subgroup of patients with ST-elevation MI. Their 30-day mortality was 8.8% with high-flow oxygen and 10.6% with the conservative oxygen protocol. The resultant 19% relative risk reduction barely missed statistical significance. There was also a trend for possible benefit of routine high-flow oxygen in the roughly 12% of NZOTACS participants with an SaO2 below 95%, a lower bar than the 90% SaO2 that defines hypoxemia. Their death rate at 30 days was 10.1% if they got supplemental oxygen and 11.1% if they only received oxygen in the event their SaO2 was below 90%. But these exploratory findings must be viewed as hypothesis-generating, and a large confirmatory study would be required, Dr. Stewart noted.
Discussant Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, commented that, based on the NZOTACS results, he believes a couple of changes to the current ESC guidelines on management of ACS are in order. The guidelines now state that oxygen is indicated in patients with suspected ACS and hypoxemia as defined by an SaO2 below 90%, giving that recommendation a Class I Level of Evidence C. That should now be upgraded to the strongest-possible Class I A recommendation, according to Dr. Hofmann, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The ESC guidelines also state that oxygen isn’t routinely recommended in patients with an SaO2 of 90% or more, rating that guidance Class III B. On the basis of NZOTACS coupled with earlier far smaller studies, that should be changed to a Class III A recommendation, meaning simply don’t do it. The hint provided by NZOTACS of a possible small benefit for oxygen in patients with an SaO2 below 95% isn’t strong enough evidence to carry the day, in Dr. Hofmann’s view.
Dr. Stewart and Dr. Hofmann reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The NZOTACS trial was funded by the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand.
SOURCE: Stewart R. ESC 2019, Hotline Session 2.
PARIS – A massive randomized trial that included all New Zealanders with a suspected acute coronary syndrome during a 2-year period has provided definitive evidence that giving high-flow supplemental oxygen to those who are nonhypoxemic is of no clinical benefit, although it wasn’t harmful, either.
“Patients who have a normal blood oxygen saturation level are very unlikely to benefit from supplemental oxygen,” Ralph Stewart, MbChB, said in presenting the results of the NZOTACS (New Zealand Oxygen Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“It’s amazing that oxygen has been used in patients with suspected heart attack for over 50 years, and during that time there’s never been definite evidence that it improves outcomes. And more recently some have even suggested giving high-level oxygen might actually cause harm,” observed Dr. Stewart, a cardiologist at Auckland City Hospital and the University of Auckland (New Zealand).
The primary outcome in NZOTACS was 30-day all-cause mortality. In the overall study population, the rate was 3.0% in the group assigned to the routine high-flow oxygen protocol and closely similar at 3.1% in those randomized to the conservative oxygen strategy. And there was reassuringly no signal that the liberal oxygen protocol caused any harm.
To conduct this cluster randomized crossover trial, Dr. Stewart and his coinvestigators divided New Zealand into quadrants and, taking advantage of the coordinated health care systems operative in the nation of 4.8 million, they arranged for all ambulances, emergency departments, and hospitals in each geographic region to utilize each supplemental oxygen strategy for a total of 12 months.
In the liberal oxygen strategy, patients with suspected ACS on the basis of ischemic chest pain or ECG changes received high-flow oxygen by face mask at 6-8 L/min regardless of their blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) level. The oxygen was stopped only upon clinical resolution of myocardial ischemia. In contrast, in the low-oxygen protocol, supplemental oxygen was reserved for patients with an initial SaO2 below 90%, with a target SaO2 of 90%-94%.
Roughly 90% of the nearly 41,000 study participants had a normal SaO2 of 90% or more. Their 30-day mortality was 2.1% with the high-oxygen protocol and similar at 1.9% with the conservative oxygen protocol.
In contrast, there was a suggestion of benefit for the routine liberal oxygen strategy in the subgroup of patients with ST-elevation MI. Their 30-day mortality was 8.8% with high-flow oxygen and 10.6% with the conservative oxygen protocol. The resultant 19% relative risk reduction barely missed statistical significance. There was also a trend for possible benefit of routine high-flow oxygen in the roughly 12% of NZOTACS participants with an SaO2 below 95%, a lower bar than the 90% SaO2 that defines hypoxemia. Their death rate at 30 days was 10.1% if they got supplemental oxygen and 11.1% if they only received oxygen in the event their SaO2 was below 90%. But these exploratory findings must be viewed as hypothesis-generating, and a large confirmatory study would be required, Dr. Stewart noted.
Discussant Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, commented that, based on the NZOTACS results, he believes a couple of changes to the current ESC guidelines on management of ACS are in order. The guidelines now state that oxygen is indicated in patients with suspected ACS and hypoxemia as defined by an SaO2 below 90%, giving that recommendation a Class I Level of Evidence C. That should now be upgraded to the strongest-possible Class I A recommendation, according to Dr. Hofmann, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The ESC guidelines also state that oxygen isn’t routinely recommended in patients with an SaO2 of 90% or more, rating that guidance Class III B. On the basis of NZOTACS coupled with earlier far smaller studies, that should be changed to a Class III A recommendation, meaning simply don’t do it. The hint provided by NZOTACS of a possible small benefit for oxygen in patients with an SaO2 below 95% isn’t strong enough evidence to carry the day, in Dr. Hofmann’s view.
Dr. Stewart and Dr. Hofmann reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The NZOTACS trial was funded by the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand.
SOURCE: Stewart R. ESC 2019, Hotline Session 2.
PARIS – A massive randomized trial that included all New Zealanders with a suspected acute coronary syndrome during a 2-year period has provided definitive evidence that giving high-flow supplemental oxygen to those who are nonhypoxemic is of no clinical benefit, although it wasn’t harmful, either.
“Patients who have a normal blood oxygen saturation level are very unlikely to benefit from supplemental oxygen,” Ralph Stewart, MbChB, said in presenting the results of the NZOTACS (New Zealand Oxygen Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“It’s amazing that oxygen has been used in patients with suspected heart attack for over 50 years, and during that time there’s never been definite evidence that it improves outcomes. And more recently some have even suggested giving high-level oxygen might actually cause harm,” observed Dr. Stewart, a cardiologist at Auckland City Hospital and the University of Auckland (New Zealand).
The primary outcome in NZOTACS was 30-day all-cause mortality. In the overall study population, the rate was 3.0% in the group assigned to the routine high-flow oxygen protocol and closely similar at 3.1% in those randomized to the conservative oxygen strategy. And there was reassuringly no signal that the liberal oxygen protocol caused any harm.
To conduct this cluster randomized crossover trial, Dr. Stewart and his coinvestigators divided New Zealand into quadrants and, taking advantage of the coordinated health care systems operative in the nation of 4.8 million, they arranged for all ambulances, emergency departments, and hospitals in each geographic region to utilize each supplemental oxygen strategy for a total of 12 months.
In the liberal oxygen strategy, patients with suspected ACS on the basis of ischemic chest pain or ECG changes received high-flow oxygen by face mask at 6-8 L/min regardless of their blood oxygen saturation (SaO2) level. The oxygen was stopped only upon clinical resolution of myocardial ischemia. In contrast, in the low-oxygen protocol, supplemental oxygen was reserved for patients with an initial SaO2 below 90%, with a target SaO2 of 90%-94%.
Roughly 90% of the nearly 41,000 study participants had a normal SaO2 of 90% or more. Their 30-day mortality was 2.1% with the high-oxygen protocol and similar at 1.9% with the conservative oxygen protocol.
In contrast, there was a suggestion of benefit for the routine liberal oxygen strategy in the subgroup of patients with ST-elevation MI. Their 30-day mortality was 8.8% with high-flow oxygen and 10.6% with the conservative oxygen protocol. The resultant 19% relative risk reduction barely missed statistical significance. There was also a trend for possible benefit of routine high-flow oxygen in the roughly 12% of NZOTACS participants with an SaO2 below 95%, a lower bar than the 90% SaO2 that defines hypoxemia. Their death rate at 30 days was 10.1% if they got supplemental oxygen and 11.1% if they only received oxygen in the event their SaO2 was below 90%. But these exploratory findings must be viewed as hypothesis-generating, and a large confirmatory study would be required, Dr. Stewart noted.
Discussant Robin Hofmann, MD, PhD, commented that, based on the NZOTACS results, he believes a couple of changes to the current ESC guidelines on management of ACS are in order. The guidelines now state that oxygen is indicated in patients with suspected ACS and hypoxemia as defined by an SaO2 below 90%, giving that recommendation a Class I Level of Evidence C. That should now be upgraded to the strongest-possible Class I A recommendation, according to Dr. Hofmann, a cardiologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
The ESC guidelines also state that oxygen isn’t routinely recommended in patients with an SaO2 of 90% or more, rating that guidance Class III B. On the basis of NZOTACS coupled with earlier far smaller studies, that should be changed to a Class III A recommendation, meaning simply don’t do it. The hint provided by NZOTACS of a possible small benefit for oxygen in patients with an SaO2 below 95% isn’t strong enough evidence to carry the day, in Dr. Hofmann’s view.
Dr. Stewart and Dr. Hofmann reported having no financial conflicts of interest. The NZOTACS trial was funded by the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand.
SOURCE: Stewart R. ESC 2019, Hotline Session 2.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
ISAR-REACT 5: Prasugrel superior to ticagrelor in ACS
PARIS – Prasugrel proved superior to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in what was hailed as “a landmark study” presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results of ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) were unequivocal: “In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with prasugrel as compared with ticagrelor significantly reduced the composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year without an increase in major bleeding,” declared first author Stephanie Schuepke, MD, a cardiologist at the German Heart Center in Munich.
The study outcome was totally unexpected. Indeed, the result didn’t merely turn heads, it no doubt caused numerous wrenched necks caused by strenuous double-takes on the part of interventional cardiologists at the congress. That’s because, even though both ticagrelor and prasugrel enjoy a class I recommendation for use in ACS in the ESC guidelines, it has been widely assumed – based on previous evidence plus the fact that ticagrelor is the more potent platelet inhibitor – that ticagrelor is the superior drug in this setting. It turns out, however, that those earlier studies weren’t germane to the issue directly addressed in ISAR-REACT 5, the first-ever direct head-to-head comparison of the two potent P2Y12 inhibitors in the setting of ACS with a planned invasive strategy.
“Obviously, very surprising results,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Schuepke shared the study findings.
“We were surprised as well,” confessed Dr. Schuepke. “We assumed that ticagrelor is superior to prasugrel in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with ACS with a planned invasive strategy. But the results show us that the opposite is true.”
ISAR-REACT 5 was an open-label, investigator-initiated randomized trial conducted at 23 centers in Germany and Italy. It included 4,018 participants with ST-elevation segment MI (STEMI), without STEMI, or with unstable angina, all with scheduled coronary angiography. Participants were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel and were expected to remain on their assigned potent antiplatelet agent plus aspirin for 1 year of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
The primary outcome was the composite of death, MI, or stroke at 1 year of follow-up. This endpoint occurred in 9.3% of the ticagrelor group and 6.9% of patients in the prasugrel group, for a highly significant 36% increased relative risk in the ticagrelor-treated patients. Prasugrel had a numeric advantage in each of the individual components of the endpoint: the 1-year rate of all-cause mortality was 4.5% with ticagrelor versus 3.7% with prasugrel; for MI, the incidence was 4.8% with ticagrelor and 3.0% with prasugrel, a statistically significant difference; and for stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%.
Major bleeding as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale occurred in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor arm, and was similar at 4.8% in the prasugrel group, Dr. Schuepke continued.
Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of the ticagrelor group and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel.
The mechanism for prasugrel’s superior results is unclear, she said. Possibilities include the fact that it’s a once-daily drug, compared with twice-daily ticagrelor, which could affect adherence; a differential profile in terms of drug interactions; and prasugrel’s reversibility of action and capacity for step-down dosing in patients at high bleeding risk.
Discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, called ISAR-REACT 5 a “fascinating” study. He elaborated: “It is a pragmatic study to answer a pragmatic question. It’s not a drug trial; really, it’s more a strategy trial, with a comparison of two drugs and two strategies.”
In ISAR-REACT 5, ticagrelor was utilized in standard fashion: Patients, regardless of their ACS type, received a 180-mg loading dose as soon as possible after randomization, typically about 3 hours after presentation. That was also the protocol in the prasugrel arm, but only in patients with STEMI, who quickly got a 60-mg loading dose. In contrast, patients without STEMI or with unstable angina didn’t get a loading dose of prasugrel until they’d undergone coronary angiography and their coronary anatomy was known. That was the ISAR-REACT 5 strategy in light of an earlier study, which concluded that giving prasugrel prior to angiography in such patients led to increased bleeding without any improvement in clinical outcomes.
The essence of ISAR-REACT 5 lies in that difference in treatment strategies and the impact it had on outcomes. “The one-size-fits-all strategy – here, with ticagrelor – was inferior to an individualized strategy, here with prasugrel,” observed Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Paris-Salpetriere Hospital.
The study results were notably consistent, favoring prasugrel over ticagrelor numerically across the board regardless of whether a patient presented with STEMI, without STEMI, or with unstable angina. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that this was also true in terms of the individual components of the 1-year composite endpoint. Dr. Montalescot drew special attention to the large subset of patients who had presented with STEMI and thus received the same treatment strategy involving a loading dose of their assigned P2Y12 inhibitor prior to angiography. This allowed for a direct head-to-head comparison of the clinical efficacy of the two antiplatelet agents in STEMI patients. The clear winner here was prasugrel, as the composite event rate was 10.1% in the ticagrelor group, compared with 7.9% in the prasugrel group.
“ISAR-REACT 5 is a landmark study which is going to impact our practice and the next set of guidelines to come in 2020,” the interventional cardiologist predicted.
Dr. Schuepke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the ISAR-REACT 5 study, sponsored by the German Heart Center and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research.
Simultaneous with her presentation of ISAR-REACT 5, the study results were published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973).
PARIS – Prasugrel proved superior to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in what was hailed as “a landmark study” presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results of ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) were unequivocal: “In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with prasugrel as compared with ticagrelor significantly reduced the composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year without an increase in major bleeding,” declared first author Stephanie Schuepke, MD, a cardiologist at the German Heart Center in Munich.
The study outcome was totally unexpected. Indeed, the result didn’t merely turn heads, it no doubt caused numerous wrenched necks caused by strenuous double-takes on the part of interventional cardiologists at the congress. That’s because, even though both ticagrelor and prasugrel enjoy a class I recommendation for use in ACS in the ESC guidelines, it has been widely assumed – based on previous evidence plus the fact that ticagrelor is the more potent platelet inhibitor – that ticagrelor is the superior drug in this setting. It turns out, however, that those earlier studies weren’t germane to the issue directly addressed in ISAR-REACT 5, the first-ever direct head-to-head comparison of the two potent P2Y12 inhibitors in the setting of ACS with a planned invasive strategy.
“Obviously, very surprising results,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Schuepke shared the study findings.
“We were surprised as well,” confessed Dr. Schuepke. “We assumed that ticagrelor is superior to prasugrel in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with ACS with a planned invasive strategy. But the results show us that the opposite is true.”
ISAR-REACT 5 was an open-label, investigator-initiated randomized trial conducted at 23 centers in Germany and Italy. It included 4,018 participants with ST-elevation segment MI (STEMI), without STEMI, or with unstable angina, all with scheduled coronary angiography. Participants were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel and were expected to remain on their assigned potent antiplatelet agent plus aspirin for 1 year of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
The primary outcome was the composite of death, MI, or stroke at 1 year of follow-up. This endpoint occurred in 9.3% of the ticagrelor group and 6.9% of patients in the prasugrel group, for a highly significant 36% increased relative risk in the ticagrelor-treated patients. Prasugrel had a numeric advantage in each of the individual components of the endpoint: the 1-year rate of all-cause mortality was 4.5% with ticagrelor versus 3.7% with prasugrel; for MI, the incidence was 4.8% with ticagrelor and 3.0% with prasugrel, a statistically significant difference; and for stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%.
Major bleeding as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale occurred in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor arm, and was similar at 4.8% in the prasugrel group, Dr. Schuepke continued.
Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of the ticagrelor group and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel.
The mechanism for prasugrel’s superior results is unclear, she said. Possibilities include the fact that it’s a once-daily drug, compared with twice-daily ticagrelor, which could affect adherence; a differential profile in terms of drug interactions; and prasugrel’s reversibility of action and capacity for step-down dosing in patients at high bleeding risk.
Discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, called ISAR-REACT 5 a “fascinating” study. He elaborated: “It is a pragmatic study to answer a pragmatic question. It’s not a drug trial; really, it’s more a strategy trial, with a comparison of two drugs and two strategies.”
In ISAR-REACT 5, ticagrelor was utilized in standard fashion: Patients, regardless of their ACS type, received a 180-mg loading dose as soon as possible after randomization, typically about 3 hours after presentation. That was also the protocol in the prasugrel arm, but only in patients with STEMI, who quickly got a 60-mg loading dose. In contrast, patients without STEMI or with unstable angina didn’t get a loading dose of prasugrel until they’d undergone coronary angiography and their coronary anatomy was known. That was the ISAR-REACT 5 strategy in light of an earlier study, which concluded that giving prasugrel prior to angiography in such patients led to increased bleeding without any improvement in clinical outcomes.
The essence of ISAR-REACT 5 lies in that difference in treatment strategies and the impact it had on outcomes. “The one-size-fits-all strategy – here, with ticagrelor – was inferior to an individualized strategy, here with prasugrel,” observed Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Paris-Salpetriere Hospital.
The study results were notably consistent, favoring prasugrel over ticagrelor numerically across the board regardless of whether a patient presented with STEMI, without STEMI, or with unstable angina. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that this was also true in terms of the individual components of the 1-year composite endpoint. Dr. Montalescot drew special attention to the large subset of patients who had presented with STEMI and thus received the same treatment strategy involving a loading dose of their assigned P2Y12 inhibitor prior to angiography. This allowed for a direct head-to-head comparison of the clinical efficacy of the two antiplatelet agents in STEMI patients. The clear winner here was prasugrel, as the composite event rate was 10.1% in the ticagrelor group, compared with 7.9% in the prasugrel group.
“ISAR-REACT 5 is a landmark study which is going to impact our practice and the next set of guidelines to come in 2020,” the interventional cardiologist predicted.
Dr. Schuepke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the ISAR-REACT 5 study, sponsored by the German Heart Center and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research.
Simultaneous with her presentation of ISAR-REACT 5, the study results were published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973).
PARIS – Prasugrel proved superior to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in what was hailed as “a landmark study” presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The results of ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) were unequivocal: “In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with prasugrel as compared with ticagrelor significantly reduced the composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year without an increase in major bleeding,” declared first author Stephanie Schuepke, MD, a cardiologist at the German Heart Center in Munich.
The study outcome was totally unexpected. Indeed, the result didn’t merely turn heads, it no doubt caused numerous wrenched necks caused by strenuous double-takes on the part of interventional cardiologists at the congress. That’s because, even though both ticagrelor and prasugrel enjoy a class I recommendation for use in ACS in the ESC guidelines, it has been widely assumed – based on previous evidence plus the fact that ticagrelor is the more potent platelet inhibitor – that ticagrelor is the superior drug in this setting. It turns out, however, that those earlier studies weren’t germane to the issue directly addressed in ISAR-REACT 5, the first-ever direct head-to-head comparison of the two potent P2Y12 inhibitors in the setting of ACS with a planned invasive strategy.
“Obviously, very surprising results,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine and director of interventional cardiology research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Schuepke shared the study findings.
“We were surprised as well,” confessed Dr. Schuepke. “We assumed that ticagrelor is superior to prasugrel in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with ACS with a planned invasive strategy. But the results show us that the opposite is true.”
ISAR-REACT 5 was an open-label, investigator-initiated randomized trial conducted at 23 centers in Germany and Italy. It included 4,018 participants with ST-elevation segment MI (STEMI), without STEMI, or with unstable angina, all with scheduled coronary angiography. Participants were randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel and were expected to remain on their assigned potent antiplatelet agent plus aspirin for 1 year of dual-antiplatelet therapy.
The primary outcome was the composite of death, MI, or stroke at 1 year of follow-up. This endpoint occurred in 9.3% of the ticagrelor group and 6.9% of patients in the prasugrel group, for a highly significant 36% increased relative risk in the ticagrelor-treated patients. Prasugrel had a numeric advantage in each of the individual components of the endpoint: the 1-year rate of all-cause mortality was 4.5% with ticagrelor versus 3.7% with prasugrel; for MI, the incidence was 4.8% with ticagrelor and 3.0% with prasugrel, a statistically significant difference; and for stroke, 1.1% versus 1.0%.
Major bleeding as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale occurred in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor arm, and was similar at 4.8% in the prasugrel group, Dr. Schuepke continued.
Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of the ticagrelor group and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel.
The mechanism for prasugrel’s superior results is unclear, she said. Possibilities include the fact that it’s a once-daily drug, compared with twice-daily ticagrelor, which could affect adherence; a differential profile in terms of drug interactions; and prasugrel’s reversibility of action and capacity for step-down dosing in patients at high bleeding risk.
Discussant Gilles Montalescot, MD, PhD, called ISAR-REACT 5 a “fascinating” study. He elaborated: “It is a pragmatic study to answer a pragmatic question. It’s not a drug trial; really, it’s more a strategy trial, with a comparison of two drugs and two strategies.”
In ISAR-REACT 5, ticagrelor was utilized in standard fashion: Patients, regardless of their ACS type, received a 180-mg loading dose as soon as possible after randomization, typically about 3 hours after presentation. That was also the protocol in the prasugrel arm, but only in patients with STEMI, who quickly got a 60-mg loading dose. In contrast, patients without STEMI or with unstable angina didn’t get a loading dose of prasugrel until they’d undergone coronary angiography and their coronary anatomy was known. That was the ISAR-REACT 5 strategy in light of an earlier study, which concluded that giving prasugrel prior to angiography in such patients led to increased bleeding without any improvement in clinical outcomes.
The essence of ISAR-REACT 5 lies in that difference in treatment strategies and the impact it had on outcomes. “The one-size-fits-all strategy – here, with ticagrelor – was inferior to an individualized strategy, here with prasugrel,” observed Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Paris-Salpetriere Hospital.
The study results were notably consistent, favoring prasugrel over ticagrelor numerically across the board regardless of whether a patient presented with STEMI, without STEMI, or with unstable angina. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that this was also true in terms of the individual components of the 1-year composite endpoint. Dr. Montalescot drew special attention to the large subset of patients who had presented with STEMI and thus received the same treatment strategy involving a loading dose of their assigned P2Y12 inhibitor prior to angiography. This allowed for a direct head-to-head comparison of the clinical efficacy of the two antiplatelet agents in STEMI patients. The clear winner here was prasugrel, as the composite event rate was 10.1% in the ticagrelor group, compared with 7.9% in the prasugrel group.
“ISAR-REACT 5 is a landmark study which is going to impact our practice and the next set of guidelines to come in 2020,” the interventional cardiologist predicted.
Dr. Schuepke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the ISAR-REACT 5 study, sponsored by the German Heart Center and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research.
Simultaneous with her presentation of ISAR-REACT 5, the study results were published online (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973).
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Post-MI angina in stable patients flags high risk
PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.
“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).
This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.
CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.
This analysis of data collected in the CLARIFY registry introduces a new scenario that may be of interest: Post-MI patients who develop angina. However, this registry comes with several caveats. Most importantly, the endpoints recorded in the CLARIFY registry were based on predefined events that did not undergo routine adjudication. Cardiovascular disease death is hard to identify, and only 1% of events underwent an audit. It is also hard to contextualize the findings as no other randomized trial or registry has enrolled an entirely similar population. The patients enrolled in CLARIFY show the diversity of patients who fall under the new category recently defined by a task force of the European Society of Cardiology: chronic coronary syndromes (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
David Hasdai, MD , is professor of medicine at Rabin Medical Center in Peta Tikva, Israel. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as designated discussant for the CLARIFY report.
This analysis of data collected in the CLARIFY registry introduces a new scenario that may be of interest: Post-MI patients who develop angina. However, this registry comes with several caveats. Most importantly, the endpoints recorded in the CLARIFY registry were based on predefined events that did not undergo routine adjudication. Cardiovascular disease death is hard to identify, and only 1% of events underwent an audit. It is also hard to contextualize the findings as no other randomized trial or registry has enrolled an entirely similar population. The patients enrolled in CLARIFY show the diversity of patients who fall under the new category recently defined by a task force of the European Society of Cardiology: chronic coronary syndromes (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
David Hasdai, MD , is professor of medicine at Rabin Medical Center in Peta Tikva, Israel. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as designated discussant for the CLARIFY report.
This analysis of data collected in the CLARIFY registry introduces a new scenario that may be of interest: Post-MI patients who develop angina. However, this registry comes with several caveats. Most importantly, the endpoints recorded in the CLARIFY registry were based on predefined events that did not undergo routine adjudication. Cardiovascular disease death is hard to identify, and only 1% of events underwent an audit. It is also hard to contextualize the findings as no other randomized trial or registry has enrolled an entirely similar population. The patients enrolled in CLARIFY show the diversity of patients who fall under the new category recently defined by a task force of the European Society of Cardiology: chronic coronary syndromes (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
David Hasdai, MD , is professor of medicine at Rabin Medical Center in Peta Tikva, Israel. He had no disclosures. He made these comments as designated discussant for the CLARIFY report.
PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.
“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).
This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.
CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.
PARIS – Patients with angina who were also more than 3 months out from a prior MI had a significantly increased rate of subsequent cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI in a study of nearly 33,000 patients, a finding that identified angina as a new red flag when following post-MI patients.
“Angina and prior MI was a higher-risk subgroup that may warrant more intensive management. This is new,” Emmanuel Sorbets, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The finding came from review of 32,703 patients from 45 countries with stable coronary artery disease enrolled in the CLARIFY (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease) registry during 2009-2010, a population that appeared to uniformly meet the new definition of chronic chromic syndromes recently published by a task force of the society (Eur Heart J. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425).
Among the CLARIFY patients, 60% had an MI more than 3 months prior to enrollment (the registry excluded patients with more proximate MIs), and in this subgroup angina at baseline was linked with a 3.6% absolute increase in the rate of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI compared with post-MI patients without angina at baseline during a median 5 year follow-up. This translated into a 44% relative increase that remained statistically significant after adjustment for several demographic and clinical factors, said Dr. Sorbets, a cardiologist at Avicenne Hospital in Bobigny, France. The cumulative incidence of the combined endpoint was 11.8% among post-MI patients with baseline angina and 8.2% in those without angina. Among patients without a prior MI, the presence or absence of angina at entry into the registry had no link with the incidence of later outcomes. Concurrently with Dr. Sorbets’ report at the congress, the results appeared in an article published online (Eur Heart J. 2019 Sep 3;doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz660).
This finding should immediately influence practice, said Sanjay Sharma, MD, professor of inherited cardiac diseases and sports cardiology at St. George’s University, London. “One of the messages from this study is that we now have a very easy way to measure a high-risk factor,” and that patients who present with angina more than 3 months after an MI “require intensive investigation and aggressive management,” he said. The new evidence identified post-MI patients with angina as having a “semi-urgent” condition that needs added anti-anginal treatment and, if symptoms persist, possible revascularization, especially patients without prior revascularization, he said in a video interview. Although the study did not analyze the type of MI linked with these poor outcomes, Dr. Sharma speculated that certain patients with a prior non ST-elevation MI may face the greatest danger it they did not undergo percutaneous coronary revascularization at the time of their MI.
CLARIFY is sponsored by Servier. Dr. Sorbets has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, and Novartis. Dr. Sharma had no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Early post-ACS bleeding may signal cancer
PARIS –, according to work presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Of 3,644 patients discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 1,215 (33%) had postdischarge bleeding. Taken together, patients who bled had a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.43 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001).
Of the patients in the post-ACS cohort, 227 were newly diagnosed with cancer after discharge, making up 1% of the patients who did not bleed after discharge, and 3.9% of the patients who experienced postdischarge bleeding. Put another way, “[t]he positive predictive value for cancer diagnosis of post-discharge bleeding was 7.7%,” wrote Isabel Muñoz Pousa, MD, and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation.
This elevated risk for cancer diagnosis was driven primarily by the 827 incidents of spontaneous bleeding; here, the HR was 4.38 (P less than .001). The 389 bleeds occuring after trauma, such as bladder catheterization or a fall, did not carry an increased risk for a new cancer diagnosis.
“Spontaneous post-discharge bleeding in ACS patients is strongly associated with subsequent cancer diagnosis within the first 6 months,” wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues of the Hospital Universitario Alvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain. The investigators found a median time of 4.6 months from the bleeding episode to cancer diagnosis.
Of all anatomic locations, genitourinary bleeds were the most strongly associated with new cancer: 228 patients saw a HR of 8.63 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001). Bronchopulmonary bleeds, sustained by 56 patients, carried a HR of 4.26 for new cancer diagnosis, and gastrointestinal bleeds a HR of 3.78 (P = .001 and P less than .001, respectively). Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her coinvestigators aggregated data from patients who had bleeding at other sites and saw no significant association with new cancers in this group of patients.
Though patients were initially discharged on dual-antiplatelet therapy, many patients stopped taking the medication over the mean 56.2 months of follow-up. The risk of bleeding did not differ significantly between those who were taking DAPT and those off DAPT, wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues, adding: “We found a higher incidence of cancer in the first six months after discharge regardless of whether patients were taking dual-antiplatelet therapy or not.”
In their statistical analysis, Dr. Muñoz Pousa and colleagues adjusted for potential confounders, and looked at the effect of bleeding as a time-varying covariate on subsequent cancer diagnosis, using Cox regression models.
“Most of the bleeding episodes in the study were mild,” noted Dr. Munoz Pousa in a press statement. However, she said, “The bleeding events more strongly related with a new cancer diagnosis were severe hemorrhages of unknown cause requiring surgery – for example digestive bleeding needing endoscopic treatment.”
Breaking bleeding severity down by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, the investigators found that most patients had relatively mild bleeding episodes categorized as BARC 1 or 2, with about half of all bleeding falling into the BARC 1 category.
Still, the 436 patients who had BARC 2 bleeding had a hazard ratio of 4.88 for cancer diagnosis, and the 71 BARC 3A patients saw the HR climb to 7.30. The risk for cancer subsequent to bleeding peaked at BARC 3B, with a HR of 12.29 for these 46 individuals (P less than .001 for all). Just 37 patients experienced BARC 3C bleeds, which were associated with a nonsignificant HR of 3.17 for new cancer diagnosis.
Although it’s not known why the post ACS–cancer bleeding association exists, Dr. Munoz Pousa put forward a plausible reason for the link. “A possible explanation is that there is a preexisting subclinical lesion in an organ that is triggered to become cancer by antiplatelet drugs or a stressful situation such as heart attack,” she said in the press release.
Antiplatelet therapy should be taken as prescribed post-ACS, and the physician threshold for further evaluation should be low when a significant spontaneous bleed is seen soon after ACS. “A prompt evaluation of bleeding could be useful for enabling an early detection of cancer in these patients,” said Dr. Munoz Pousa and her colleagues. “Our results suggest that patients should seek medical advice if they experience bleeding after discharge for a heart attack.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Munoz Pousa, I. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P677.
PARIS –, according to work presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Of 3,644 patients discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 1,215 (33%) had postdischarge bleeding. Taken together, patients who bled had a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.43 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001).
Of the patients in the post-ACS cohort, 227 were newly diagnosed with cancer after discharge, making up 1% of the patients who did not bleed after discharge, and 3.9% of the patients who experienced postdischarge bleeding. Put another way, “[t]he positive predictive value for cancer diagnosis of post-discharge bleeding was 7.7%,” wrote Isabel Muñoz Pousa, MD, and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation.
This elevated risk for cancer diagnosis was driven primarily by the 827 incidents of spontaneous bleeding; here, the HR was 4.38 (P less than .001). The 389 bleeds occuring after trauma, such as bladder catheterization or a fall, did not carry an increased risk for a new cancer diagnosis.
“Spontaneous post-discharge bleeding in ACS patients is strongly associated with subsequent cancer diagnosis within the first 6 months,” wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues of the Hospital Universitario Alvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain. The investigators found a median time of 4.6 months from the bleeding episode to cancer diagnosis.
Of all anatomic locations, genitourinary bleeds were the most strongly associated with new cancer: 228 patients saw a HR of 8.63 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001). Bronchopulmonary bleeds, sustained by 56 patients, carried a HR of 4.26 for new cancer diagnosis, and gastrointestinal bleeds a HR of 3.78 (P = .001 and P less than .001, respectively). Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her coinvestigators aggregated data from patients who had bleeding at other sites and saw no significant association with new cancers in this group of patients.
Though patients were initially discharged on dual-antiplatelet therapy, many patients stopped taking the medication over the mean 56.2 months of follow-up. The risk of bleeding did not differ significantly between those who were taking DAPT and those off DAPT, wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues, adding: “We found a higher incidence of cancer in the first six months after discharge regardless of whether patients were taking dual-antiplatelet therapy or not.”
In their statistical analysis, Dr. Muñoz Pousa and colleagues adjusted for potential confounders, and looked at the effect of bleeding as a time-varying covariate on subsequent cancer diagnosis, using Cox regression models.
“Most of the bleeding episodes in the study were mild,” noted Dr. Munoz Pousa in a press statement. However, she said, “The bleeding events more strongly related with a new cancer diagnosis were severe hemorrhages of unknown cause requiring surgery – for example digestive bleeding needing endoscopic treatment.”
Breaking bleeding severity down by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, the investigators found that most patients had relatively mild bleeding episodes categorized as BARC 1 or 2, with about half of all bleeding falling into the BARC 1 category.
Still, the 436 patients who had BARC 2 bleeding had a hazard ratio of 4.88 for cancer diagnosis, and the 71 BARC 3A patients saw the HR climb to 7.30. The risk for cancer subsequent to bleeding peaked at BARC 3B, with a HR of 12.29 for these 46 individuals (P less than .001 for all). Just 37 patients experienced BARC 3C bleeds, which were associated with a nonsignificant HR of 3.17 for new cancer diagnosis.
Although it’s not known why the post ACS–cancer bleeding association exists, Dr. Munoz Pousa put forward a plausible reason for the link. “A possible explanation is that there is a preexisting subclinical lesion in an organ that is triggered to become cancer by antiplatelet drugs or a stressful situation such as heart attack,” she said in the press release.
Antiplatelet therapy should be taken as prescribed post-ACS, and the physician threshold for further evaluation should be low when a significant spontaneous bleed is seen soon after ACS. “A prompt evaluation of bleeding could be useful for enabling an early detection of cancer in these patients,” said Dr. Munoz Pousa and her colleagues. “Our results suggest that patients should seek medical advice if they experience bleeding after discharge for a heart attack.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Munoz Pousa, I. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P677.
PARIS –, according to work presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Of 3,644 patients discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 1,215 (33%) had postdischarge bleeding. Taken together, patients who bled had a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.43 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001).
Of the patients in the post-ACS cohort, 227 were newly diagnosed with cancer after discharge, making up 1% of the patients who did not bleed after discharge, and 3.9% of the patients who experienced postdischarge bleeding. Put another way, “[t]he positive predictive value for cancer diagnosis of post-discharge bleeding was 7.7%,” wrote Isabel Muñoz Pousa, MD, and her colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation.
This elevated risk for cancer diagnosis was driven primarily by the 827 incidents of spontaneous bleeding; here, the HR was 4.38 (P less than .001). The 389 bleeds occuring after trauma, such as bladder catheterization or a fall, did not carry an increased risk for a new cancer diagnosis.
“Spontaneous post-discharge bleeding in ACS patients is strongly associated with subsequent cancer diagnosis within the first 6 months,” wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues of the Hospital Universitario Alvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain. The investigators found a median time of 4.6 months from the bleeding episode to cancer diagnosis.
Of all anatomic locations, genitourinary bleeds were the most strongly associated with new cancer: 228 patients saw a HR of 8.63 for a new cancer diagnosis (P less than .001). Bronchopulmonary bleeds, sustained by 56 patients, carried a HR of 4.26 for new cancer diagnosis, and gastrointestinal bleeds a HR of 3.78 (P = .001 and P less than .001, respectively). Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her coinvestigators aggregated data from patients who had bleeding at other sites and saw no significant association with new cancers in this group of patients.
Though patients were initially discharged on dual-antiplatelet therapy, many patients stopped taking the medication over the mean 56.2 months of follow-up. The risk of bleeding did not differ significantly between those who were taking DAPT and those off DAPT, wrote Dr. Muñoz Pousa and her colleagues, adding: “We found a higher incidence of cancer in the first six months after discharge regardless of whether patients were taking dual-antiplatelet therapy or not.”
In their statistical analysis, Dr. Muñoz Pousa and colleagues adjusted for potential confounders, and looked at the effect of bleeding as a time-varying covariate on subsequent cancer diagnosis, using Cox regression models.
“Most of the bleeding episodes in the study were mild,” noted Dr. Munoz Pousa in a press statement. However, she said, “The bleeding events more strongly related with a new cancer diagnosis were severe hemorrhages of unknown cause requiring surgery – for example digestive bleeding needing endoscopic treatment.”
Breaking bleeding severity down by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria, the investigators found that most patients had relatively mild bleeding episodes categorized as BARC 1 or 2, with about half of all bleeding falling into the BARC 1 category.
Still, the 436 patients who had BARC 2 bleeding had a hazard ratio of 4.88 for cancer diagnosis, and the 71 BARC 3A patients saw the HR climb to 7.30. The risk for cancer subsequent to bleeding peaked at BARC 3B, with a HR of 12.29 for these 46 individuals (P less than .001 for all). Just 37 patients experienced BARC 3C bleeds, which were associated with a nonsignificant HR of 3.17 for new cancer diagnosis.
Although it’s not known why the post ACS–cancer bleeding association exists, Dr. Munoz Pousa put forward a plausible reason for the link. “A possible explanation is that there is a preexisting subclinical lesion in an organ that is triggered to become cancer by antiplatelet drugs or a stressful situation such as heart attack,” she said in the press release.
Antiplatelet therapy should be taken as prescribed post-ACS, and the physician threshold for further evaluation should be low when a significant spontaneous bleed is seen soon after ACS. “A prompt evaluation of bleeding could be useful for enabling an early detection of cancer in these patients,” said Dr. Munoz Pousa and her colleagues. “Our results suggest that patients should seek medical advice if they experience bleeding after discharge for a heart attack.”
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Munoz Pousa, I. et al. ESC Congress 2019, Abstract P677.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2019
POP AGE shakes up DAPT in elderly
PARIS – Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were assigned to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel experienced significantly less major and minor bleeding than with ticagrelor or prasugrel and were similarly protected from thrombotic events in the prospective randomized POPular AGE trial, Marieke E. Gimbel, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Therefore, we consider clopidogrel the preferred treatment in patients age 70 or older with non-ST-elevation ACS,” said Dr. Gimbel, a cardiologist at St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
This stance is contrary to both the current ESC and U.S. guidelines on management of non-ST-elevation ACS, which preferentially recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel over clopidogrel, chiefly on the basis of the large PLATO (N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045-57) and TRITON TIMI 38 (N Engl J Med 2007;357:2001-15) randomized trials. Those studies from the previous decade reported significantly lower rates of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute MI, or stroke in patients on ticagrelor or prasugrel, respectively, than with clopidogrel. But this benefit came at a cost of significantly higher rates of TIMI major bleeding than with clopidogrel, and multiple studies have shown that major bleeding in ACS patients is associated with a sharply increased risk of death.
Bleeding is an issue of particular concern in the elderly. But older patients were greatly underrepresented in PLATO and TRITON, where they comprised just 13%-15% of participants, even though registry studies would suggest older individuals make up about 35% of all patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. Selective inclusion of elderly patients in the major trials means those study results can’t legitimately be extrapolated to the entire elderly patient population.
“The best course of action in the elderly has been unclear,” Dr. Gimbel argued.
The POPular AGE (POP AGE) trial was an open-label study featuring independent blinded adjudication of clinical events. The median age of participants was 77 years, and about one-quarter had a prior MI. It was basically an all-comers study in which 1,003 non-ST-elevation ACS patients age 70 or older at 11 Dutch medical centers were randomized within 3 days of hospital admission to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with either ticagrelor or one of the two more potent antiplatelet agents. Although the choice of ticagrelor or prasugrel was left to the physician, it’s noteworthy that 94% of patients in the high-potency P2Y12 inhibitor study arm were discharged on ticagrelor. At 12 months, the adherence rate to the assigned regimen was 76% in the clopidogrel group and just 51% in what was essentially the ticagrelor arm. Bleeding was the number-one reason for the much higher discontinuation rate in the ticagrelor group, followed by initiation of oral anticoagulation and dyspnea.
The primary safety endpoint in POP AGE was the rate of major and minor bleeding as defined in the PLATO study. The rate was 17.6% with clopidogrel, compared with 23.1% in the ticagrelor group, for a highly significant 26% reduction in relative risk. Of note, the PLATO major bleeding rate was 4.4% with clopidogrel, versus 8% with ticagrelor/prasugrel.
The coprimary endpoint was net clinical benefit, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. The rate was 30.7% with ticagrelor and 27.3% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute 3.4% risk difference favoring clopidogrel, which barely missed the prespecified cutoff for noninferiority. Indeed, even though the 12-month follow-up was 99.6% complete, Dr. Gimbel raised the possibility that when the results come in for the final 0.4% of the study population, the difference in net clinical benefit may reach significance.
In any case, she noted there was no between-group difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, MI, or stroke, with rates of 12.8% and 12.5% in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively.
“One might expect a higher ischemic event rate with clopidogrel compared to ticagrelor. However, in these elderly patients there was no difference between the two treatment strategies,” the cardiologist observed.
POP AGE is hailed as ‘a wake up call’
In an interview, Freek Verheugt, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of cardiology at Radboud University in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, called POP AGE “a very important study.”
“The problem with most studies in the elderly is that they are post hoc analyses from huge trials like PLATO and TRITON, and also the thrombolysis and primary PCI studies. The elderly do very well in those studies, because only the very fit elderly are included in the megatrials. It’s much more important to do a prospective randomized trial in the elderly only, and this is one of the very few done so far,” he observed.
Bleeding is a major problem in the elderly with ACS. It leads to more MIs, strokes, and increased mortality.
“Even minor bleeding is an issue,” Dr. Verheugt added. “Minor bleeding is a major problem, because patients who encounter minor bleeding – nose bleeds, gum bleeds, or even in their underwear – they do away with all drugs. They stop their antithrombotic, but they also stop their statin, their ACE inhibitor – their lifesavers – and that’s why they die.”
So is POP AGE a practice-changing study?
“No, of course not,” the cardiologist scoffed. “To be practice-changing you need several trials going in the same direction. But I think if there are more data prospectively accrued in the elderly alone, showing the same, then POP AGE would be practice-changing.”
“In my personal view, this study is a wake-up call. If you have an elderly, frail patient presenting with ACS, strongly consider good, old clopidogrel. Although people say that 30% of patients on clopidogrel don’t have appropriate platelet inhibition, that’s a laboratory finding. It’s not a clinical finding. POP AGE gave us a clinical finding showing that they do quite well,” he said.
Dr. Verheugt was on the independent data safety monitoring board for POP AGE, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch governmental research organization. Neither Dr. Verheugt nor Dr. Gimbel reported having any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gimbel ME. ESC 2019, Abstract 84.
PARIS – Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were assigned to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel experienced significantly less major and minor bleeding than with ticagrelor or prasugrel and were similarly protected from thrombotic events in the prospective randomized POPular AGE trial, Marieke E. Gimbel, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Therefore, we consider clopidogrel the preferred treatment in patients age 70 or older with non-ST-elevation ACS,” said Dr. Gimbel, a cardiologist at St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
This stance is contrary to both the current ESC and U.S. guidelines on management of non-ST-elevation ACS, which preferentially recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel over clopidogrel, chiefly on the basis of the large PLATO (N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045-57) and TRITON TIMI 38 (N Engl J Med 2007;357:2001-15) randomized trials. Those studies from the previous decade reported significantly lower rates of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute MI, or stroke in patients on ticagrelor or prasugrel, respectively, than with clopidogrel. But this benefit came at a cost of significantly higher rates of TIMI major bleeding than with clopidogrel, and multiple studies have shown that major bleeding in ACS patients is associated with a sharply increased risk of death.
Bleeding is an issue of particular concern in the elderly. But older patients were greatly underrepresented in PLATO and TRITON, where they comprised just 13%-15% of participants, even though registry studies would suggest older individuals make up about 35% of all patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. Selective inclusion of elderly patients in the major trials means those study results can’t legitimately be extrapolated to the entire elderly patient population.
“The best course of action in the elderly has been unclear,” Dr. Gimbel argued.
The POPular AGE (POP AGE) trial was an open-label study featuring independent blinded adjudication of clinical events. The median age of participants was 77 years, and about one-quarter had a prior MI. It was basically an all-comers study in which 1,003 non-ST-elevation ACS patients age 70 or older at 11 Dutch medical centers were randomized within 3 days of hospital admission to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with either ticagrelor or one of the two more potent antiplatelet agents. Although the choice of ticagrelor or prasugrel was left to the physician, it’s noteworthy that 94% of patients in the high-potency P2Y12 inhibitor study arm were discharged on ticagrelor. At 12 months, the adherence rate to the assigned regimen was 76% in the clopidogrel group and just 51% in what was essentially the ticagrelor arm. Bleeding was the number-one reason for the much higher discontinuation rate in the ticagrelor group, followed by initiation of oral anticoagulation and dyspnea.
The primary safety endpoint in POP AGE was the rate of major and minor bleeding as defined in the PLATO study. The rate was 17.6% with clopidogrel, compared with 23.1% in the ticagrelor group, for a highly significant 26% reduction in relative risk. Of note, the PLATO major bleeding rate was 4.4% with clopidogrel, versus 8% with ticagrelor/prasugrel.
The coprimary endpoint was net clinical benefit, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. The rate was 30.7% with ticagrelor and 27.3% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute 3.4% risk difference favoring clopidogrel, which barely missed the prespecified cutoff for noninferiority. Indeed, even though the 12-month follow-up was 99.6% complete, Dr. Gimbel raised the possibility that when the results come in for the final 0.4% of the study population, the difference in net clinical benefit may reach significance.
In any case, she noted there was no between-group difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, MI, or stroke, with rates of 12.8% and 12.5% in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively.
“One might expect a higher ischemic event rate with clopidogrel compared to ticagrelor. However, in these elderly patients there was no difference between the two treatment strategies,” the cardiologist observed.
POP AGE is hailed as ‘a wake up call’
In an interview, Freek Verheugt, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of cardiology at Radboud University in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, called POP AGE “a very important study.”
“The problem with most studies in the elderly is that they are post hoc analyses from huge trials like PLATO and TRITON, and also the thrombolysis and primary PCI studies. The elderly do very well in those studies, because only the very fit elderly are included in the megatrials. It’s much more important to do a prospective randomized trial in the elderly only, and this is one of the very few done so far,” he observed.
Bleeding is a major problem in the elderly with ACS. It leads to more MIs, strokes, and increased mortality.
“Even minor bleeding is an issue,” Dr. Verheugt added. “Minor bleeding is a major problem, because patients who encounter minor bleeding – nose bleeds, gum bleeds, or even in their underwear – they do away with all drugs. They stop their antithrombotic, but they also stop their statin, their ACE inhibitor – their lifesavers – and that’s why they die.”
So is POP AGE a practice-changing study?
“No, of course not,” the cardiologist scoffed. “To be practice-changing you need several trials going in the same direction. But I think if there are more data prospectively accrued in the elderly alone, showing the same, then POP AGE would be practice-changing.”
“In my personal view, this study is a wake-up call. If you have an elderly, frail patient presenting with ACS, strongly consider good, old clopidogrel. Although people say that 30% of patients on clopidogrel don’t have appropriate platelet inhibition, that’s a laboratory finding. It’s not a clinical finding. POP AGE gave us a clinical finding showing that they do quite well,” he said.
Dr. Verheugt was on the independent data safety monitoring board for POP AGE, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch governmental research organization. Neither Dr. Verheugt nor Dr. Gimbel reported having any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gimbel ME. ESC 2019, Abstract 84.
PARIS – Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were assigned to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel experienced significantly less major and minor bleeding than with ticagrelor or prasugrel and were similarly protected from thrombotic events in the prospective randomized POPular AGE trial, Marieke E. Gimbel, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“Therefore, we consider clopidogrel the preferred treatment in patients age 70 or older with non-ST-elevation ACS,” said Dr. Gimbel, a cardiologist at St. Antonius Hospital in Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
This stance is contrary to both the current ESC and U.S. guidelines on management of non-ST-elevation ACS, which preferentially recommend ticagrelor and prasugrel over clopidogrel, chiefly on the basis of the large PLATO (N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045-57) and TRITON TIMI 38 (N Engl J Med 2007;357:2001-15) randomized trials. Those studies from the previous decade reported significantly lower rates of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, acute MI, or stroke in patients on ticagrelor or prasugrel, respectively, than with clopidogrel. But this benefit came at a cost of significantly higher rates of TIMI major bleeding than with clopidogrel, and multiple studies have shown that major bleeding in ACS patients is associated with a sharply increased risk of death.
Bleeding is an issue of particular concern in the elderly. But older patients were greatly underrepresented in PLATO and TRITON, where they comprised just 13%-15% of participants, even though registry studies would suggest older individuals make up about 35% of all patients with non-ST-elevation ACS. Selective inclusion of elderly patients in the major trials means those study results can’t legitimately be extrapolated to the entire elderly patient population.
“The best course of action in the elderly has been unclear,” Dr. Gimbel argued.
The POPular AGE (POP AGE) trial was an open-label study featuring independent blinded adjudication of clinical events. The median age of participants was 77 years, and about one-quarter had a prior MI. It was basically an all-comers study in which 1,003 non-ST-elevation ACS patients age 70 or older at 11 Dutch medical centers were randomized within 3 days of hospital admission to 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with either ticagrelor or one of the two more potent antiplatelet agents. Although the choice of ticagrelor or prasugrel was left to the physician, it’s noteworthy that 94% of patients in the high-potency P2Y12 inhibitor study arm were discharged on ticagrelor. At 12 months, the adherence rate to the assigned regimen was 76% in the clopidogrel group and just 51% in what was essentially the ticagrelor arm. Bleeding was the number-one reason for the much higher discontinuation rate in the ticagrelor group, followed by initiation of oral anticoagulation and dyspnea.
The primary safety endpoint in POP AGE was the rate of major and minor bleeding as defined in the PLATO study. The rate was 17.6% with clopidogrel, compared with 23.1% in the ticagrelor group, for a highly significant 26% reduction in relative risk. Of note, the PLATO major bleeding rate was 4.4% with clopidogrel, versus 8% with ticagrelor/prasugrel.
The coprimary endpoint was net clinical benefit, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, and PLATO major and minor bleeding. The rate was 30.7% with ticagrelor and 27.3% in the clopidogrel group, for an absolute 3.4% risk difference favoring clopidogrel, which barely missed the prespecified cutoff for noninferiority. Indeed, even though the 12-month follow-up was 99.6% complete, Dr. Gimbel raised the possibility that when the results come in for the final 0.4% of the study population, the difference in net clinical benefit may reach significance.
In any case, she noted there was no between-group difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, MI, or stroke, with rates of 12.8% and 12.5% in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively.
“One might expect a higher ischemic event rate with clopidogrel compared to ticagrelor. However, in these elderly patients there was no difference between the two treatment strategies,” the cardiologist observed.
POP AGE is hailed as ‘a wake up call’
In an interview, Freek Verheugt, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of cardiology at Radboud University in Nijmegen, The Netherlands, called POP AGE “a very important study.”
“The problem with most studies in the elderly is that they are post hoc analyses from huge trials like PLATO and TRITON, and also the thrombolysis and primary PCI studies. The elderly do very well in those studies, because only the very fit elderly are included in the megatrials. It’s much more important to do a prospective randomized trial in the elderly only, and this is one of the very few done so far,” he observed.
Bleeding is a major problem in the elderly with ACS. It leads to more MIs, strokes, and increased mortality.
“Even minor bleeding is an issue,” Dr. Verheugt added. “Minor bleeding is a major problem, because patients who encounter minor bleeding – nose bleeds, gum bleeds, or even in their underwear – they do away with all drugs. They stop their antithrombotic, but they also stop their statin, their ACE inhibitor – their lifesavers – and that’s why they die.”
So is POP AGE a practice-changing study?
“No, of course not,” the cardiologist scoffed. “To be practice-changing you need several trials going in the same direction. But I think if there are more data prospectively accrued in the elderly alone, showing the same, then POP AGE would be practice-changing.”
“In my personal view, this study is a wake-up call. If you have an elderly, frail patient presenting with ACS, strongly consider good, old clopidogrel. Although people say that 30% of patients on clopidogrel don’t have appropriate platelet inhibition, that’s a laboratory finding. It’s not a clinical finding. POP AGE gave us a clinical finding showing that they do quite well,” he said.
Dr. Verheugt was on the independent data safety monitoring board for POP AGE, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch governmental research organization. Neither Dr. Verheugt nor Dr. Gimbel reported having any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gimbel ME. ESC 2019, Abstract 84.
AT THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The rate of major and minor bleeding was 17.6% with clopidogrel, compared with 23.1% in the ticagrelor group, for a highly significant 26% reduction in relative risk.
Study details: POPular AGE, an 11-center Dutch RCT, included 1,003 patients age 70 or older with non-ST-elevation ACS.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by the Dutch government.
Source: Gimbel ME. ESC 2019, Abstract 84.