Christophe Saint-Etienne

Dual-antiplatelet treatment beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation (ARCTIC-Interruption): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Optimum duration of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) after coronary stenting remains uncertain, with an unknown efficacy to safety ratio of extended treatment leading to discrepancies between international guidelines and clinical practice. We assessed whether DAPT continuation beyond 1 year after coronary stenting is beneficial. METHODS This analysis was a planned extension of the previously published ARCTIC-Monitoring trial, in which we randomly allocated 2440 patients to a strategy of platelet function testing with antiplatelet treatment adjustment or a conventional strategy after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stent (DES). We recruited patients (aged 18 years or older) scheduled for planned DES implantation at 38 centres in France. After 1 year of follow-up, patients without contraindication to interruption of DAPT were eligible for a second randomisation to this second phase of the study (ARCTIC-Interruption). Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by centre), we allocated patients to a strategy of interruption of DAPT where the thienopyridine was interrupted and single aspirin antiplatelet treatment was maintained (interruption group) or a strategy of DAPT continuation for 6-18 months (continuation group). The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00827411. FINDINGS Between Jan 4, 2011, and March 3, 2012, 1259 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment in ARCTIC-Interruption: 624 to the interruption group and 635 to the continuation group. After a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 15-18), the primary endpoint occurred in 27 (4%) patients in the interruption group and 24 (4%) patients in the continuation group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17 [95% CI 0·68-2·03]; p=0·58). STEEPLE major bleeding events occurred more often in the continuation group (seven [1%] patients) compared with the interruption group (one [<0·5%] patient; HR 0·15 [0·02-1·20]; p=0·073). Major or minor bleedings were also more common in the continuation group compared with the interruption group (12 [2%] patients vs three [1%] patients; HR 0·26 [0·07-0·91]; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION Our finding suggests no apparent benefit but instead harm with extension of DAPT beyond 1 year after stenting with DES when no event has occurred within the first year after stenting. No conclusion can be drawn for high-risk patients who could not be randomised. The consistency between findings from all trials of such interruption suggests the need for a reappraisal of guidelines for DAPT after coronary stenting towards shorter duration of treatment. FUNDING Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks (ACTION Study Group), Fondation de France, Sanofi-Aventis, Cordis, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Fondation SGAM.

High-On Treatment Platelet Reactivity as a Risk Factor for Secondary Prevention after Coronary Stent Revascularization: A Landmark Analysis of the ARCTIC Study

Background— Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown. Methods and Results— In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y12/aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835–1.461; P=0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively (P=0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm (P=0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively (P=0.10). Conclusions— Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

Clinical Outcome of First- vs Second-Generation DES According to DAPT Duration: Results of ARCTIC-Generation

There is an apparent benefit with extension of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DES). Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy vs a Monitoring‐Guided Strategy for Drug‐Eluting Stent Implantation, and of Treatment Interruption vs Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC)‐Generation assessed whether there is a difference of outcome between first‐ vs second‐generation DES and if there is an interaction with DAPT duration in the ARCTIC‐Interruption study. ARCTIC‐Interruption randomly allocated 1259 patients 1 year after stent implantation to a strategy of interruption of DAPT (n = 624), in which aspirin antiplatelet treatment only was maintained, or DAPT continuation (n = 635) for 6 to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization. A total of 520 and 722 patients received a first‐ and a second‐generation DES, respectively. After a median follow‐up of 17 months (interquartile range, 15–18 months) after randomization, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 (6.2%) and 19 (2.6%) patients with first‐ and second‐generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.31‐4.07, P = 0.004). This was observed irrespective of the strategy of interruption or continuation of DAPT and timing of study recruitment. Major bleeding events occurred in 4 (0.8%) and 3 patients (0.4%) with first‐ and second‐generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.40‐8.02, P = 0.44). Results did not change after multiple adjustments for potential confounding variables. ARCTIC‐Generation showed worse clinical outcome with first‐ vs second‐generation DES, a difference that appeared to persist even with prolonged DAPT.

High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity as a Risk Factor for Secondary Prevention After Coronary Stent RevascularizationCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Background— Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown. Methods and Results— In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y12/aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835–1.461; P=0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively (P=0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm (P=0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively (P=0.10). Conclusions— Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.

High On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity as a Risk Factor for Secondary Prevention After Coronary Stent RevascularizationCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE: A Landmark Analysis of the ARCTIC Study

Background— Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown. Methods and Results— In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y12/aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835–1.461; P=0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively (P=0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm (P=0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively (P=0.10). Conclusions— Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.