Håkan Emanuelsson

Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation. RESULTS At 12 months, the primary end point--a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke--had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types. CONCLUSIONS In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00391872.)

Randomised comparison of implantation of heparin-coated stents with balloon angioplasty in selected patients with coronary artery disease (Benestent II)

BACKGROUND The multicentre, randomised Benestent-II study investigated a strategy of implantation of a heparin-coated Palmar-Schatz stent plus antiplatelet drugs compared with the use of balloon angioplasty in selected patients with stable or stabilised unstable angina, with one or more de-novo lesions, less than 18 mm long, in vessels of diameter 3 mm or more. METHODS 827 patients were randomly assigned stent implantation (414 patients) or standard balloon angioplasty (413 patients). The primary clinical endpoint was event-free survival at 6 months, including death, myocardial infarction, and the need for revascularisation. The secondary endpoints were the restenosis rate at 6 months and the cost-effectiveness at 12 months. There was also one-to-one subrandomisation to either clinical and angiographic follow-up or clinical follow-up alone. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS Four patients (one stent group, three angioplasty group) were excluded from analysis since no lesion was found. At 6 months, a primary clinical endpoint had occurred in 53 (12.8%) of 413 patients in the stent group and 79 (19.3%) of 410 in the angioplasty group (p=0.013). This significant difference in clinical outcome was maintained at 12 months. In the subgroup assigned angiographic follow-up, the mean minimum lumen diameter was greater in the stent group than in the balloon-angioplasty group, (1.89 [SD 0.65] vs 1.66 [0.57] mm, p=0.0002), which corresponds to restenosis rates (diameter stenosis > or =50%) of 16% and 31% (p=0.0008). In the group assigned clinical follow-up alone, event-free survival rate at 12 months was higher in the stent group than the balloon-angioplasty group (0.89 vs 0.79, p=0.004) at a cost of an additional 2085 Dutch guilders (US

Does the new angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor cilazapril prevent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty? Results of the MERCATOR study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial

1020) per patient. INTERPRETATION Over 12-month follow-up, a strategy of elective stenting with heparin-coated stents is more effective but also more costly than balloon angioplasty.

Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study

BACKGROUND Cilazapril is a novel angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor with antiproliferative effects in the rat model after balloon injury. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the effect of cilazapril in angiographic restenosis prevention after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Patients received cilazapril 2.5 mg in the evening after successful PTCA and 5 mg b.i.d. for 6 months or matched placebo. In addition, all patients received aspirin for 6 months. Coronary angiograms before PTCA, after PTCA, and at 6-month follow-up were quantitatively analyzed. In 94% of 735 recruited patients, PTCA was successful and all inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. For the per-protocol analysis, quantitative angiography after PTCA and at follow-up was available in 595 patients who complied with the treatment regimen (309 control, 286 cilazapril). The mean difference in minimal coronary lumen diameter between post-PTCA and follow-up angiogram (primary end point) was -0.29 +/- 0.49 mm in the control group and -0.27 +/- 0.51 mm in the cilazapril group. Clinical events during 6-month follow-up, analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, were ranked according to the most serious clinical event ranging from death (control, two; cilazapril, three), nonfatal myocardial infarction (control, eight; cilazapril, 5), coronary revascularization (control, 51; cilazapril, 53), or recurrent angina requiring medical therapy (control, 67; cilazapril, 68) to none of the above (control, 224; cilazapril, 212). There were no significant differences in ranking. CONCLUSIONS Long-term angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition with cilazapril in a dose of 5 mg b.i.d. does not prevent restenosis and does not favorably influence the overall clinical outcome after PTCA.

Randomized evaluation of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent implantation in high-risk patients: the multicenter aspirin and ticlopidine trial after intracoronary stenting (MATTIS).

BACKGROUND Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients. METHODS At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72.0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300-600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6-12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872. FINDINGS 6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9.0%] vs 668 [10.7%], hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11.6%] vs 689 [11.5%], 0.99 [0.89-1.10]; p=0.8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3.2%] vs 185 [2.9%], 0.91 [0.74-1.12]; p=0.3785). INTERPRETATION Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND Although the association of ticlopidine and aspirin has been shown to be superior to anti-vitamin K agents and aspirin after coronary stent implantation in low-risk patients, the latter combination has remained an unproven reference regimen for high-risk patients until recently. METHODS AND RESULTS We randomized 350 high-risk patients within 6 hours after stent implantation to receive during 30 days either aspirin 250 mg and ticlopidine 500 mg/d (A+T group) or aspirin 250 mg/d and oral anticoagulation (A+OAC group) targeted at an international normalized ratio of 2.5 to 3. The primary composite end point was defined as the occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or repeated revascularization at 30 days. Patients were eligible if (1) the stent(s) were implanted to treat abrupt closure after PTCA; (2) the angiographic result after implantation was suboptimal; (3) a long segment was stented (>45 mm and/or >/=3 stents); or (4) the largest balloon inflated in the stent had a nominal diameter of </=2.5 mm. The primary cardiac end point was reached for 10 patients (5.6%) in the A+T group and 19 (11%) in the A+OAC group (relative risk [RR], 1. 9; 95% CI, 0.9 to 4.1; P=0.07). Major vascular and bleeding complications were less frequent in the A+T group (3 patients, 1.7%) than in the A+OAC group (12 patients, 6.9%) (RR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.2 to 14.3; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS High-risk patients should be treated with A+T rather than A+OAC after coronary stenting because the bleeding and vascular complications are significantly reduced and there is a marked trend suggesting a decrease in cardiac events.

Oral ximelagatran for secondary prophylaxis after myocardial infarction : the ESTEEM randomised controlled trial.

Background— Aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or undergoing coronary stenting. Ticagrelor, a reversible oral P2Y12-receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel and may be useful for patients with acute ST-segment elevation (STE) ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Result— Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), a randomized, double-blind trial, compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel for the prevention of vascular events in 18 624 ACS patients. This report concerns the 7544 ACS patients with STE or left bundle-branch block allocated to either ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 300-mg loading dose (with provision for 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention) followed by 75 mg daily for 6 to 12 months. The reduction of the primary end point (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (10.8% versus 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.07) was consistent with the overall PLATO results. There was no interaction between presentation with STE/left bundle-branch block and randomized treatment (interaction P=0.29). Ticagrelor reduced several secondary end points, including myocardial infarction alone (HR, 0.80; P=0.03), total mortality (HR, 0.82; P=0.05), and definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.66; P=0.03). The risk of stroke, low in both groups, was higher with ticagrelor (1.7% versus 1.0%; HR,1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 2.48; P=0.02). Ticagrelor did not affect major bleeding (HR, 0.98; P=0.76). Conclusion— In patients with STE-ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the effects of ticagrelor were consistent with those observed in the overall PLATO trial. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872.

Comparison of ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist, with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial

BACKGROUND Despite important advances in treatment, the risk of recurrent ischaemic events is high both early and late after an acute coronary syndrome. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of ximelagatran and acetylsalicylic acid for prevention of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and severe recurrent ischaemia after a recent myocardial infarction. METHODS In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, multinational dose-guiding study we assessed 1883 patients who had had recent ST-elevation or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Within 14 days after the index event we randomised the participants in the proportions 1/1/1/1/2 to oral ximelagatran at doses of 24 mg, 36 mg, 48 mg, or 60 mg twice daily, or placebo, respectively for 6 months. All patients received acetylsalicylic acid 160 mg once daily. The primary efficacy outcome was the dose response of ximelagatran by comparison with placebo for the occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and severe recurrent ischaemia. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Oral ximelagatran significantly reduced the risk for the primary endpoint compared with placebo from 16.3% (102 of 638) to 12.7% (154 of 1245) (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98, p=0.036) for the combined ximelagatran groups versus placebo. There was no indication of a dose response between the ximelagatran groups. Major bleeding events were rare, 1.8% (23 of 1245) and 0.9% (six of 638) (hazard ratio 1.97, 95% CI 0.80-4.84) in the combined ximelagatran and placebo groups, respectively. We recorded no serious clinically adverse outcomes judged related to the investigational drug. INTERPRETATION Oral direct thrombin inhibition with ximelagatran and acetylsalicylic acid is more effective than acetylsalicylic acid alone in preventing major cardiovascular events during 6 months of treatment in patients who have had a recent myocardial infarction.

Prognostic value of intracoronary flow velocity and diameter stenosis in assessing the short- and long-term outcomes of coronary balloon angioplasty - The DEBATE study (Doppler Endpoints Balloon Angioplasty Trial Europe)

BACKGROUND Antiplatelet therapy is essential treatment for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Current therapies, however, have important limitations affecting their clinical success. Ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent adenosine diphosphate-receptor inhibition than clopidogrel. The phase III PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial is designed to test the hypothesis that ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel will result in a lower risk of recurrent thrombotic events in a broad patient population with ACS. METHODS PLATO is an international, randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial involving >18,000 patients hospitalized for ST-elevation ACS with scheduled primary percutaneous coronary intervention or for non-ST-elevation ACS. After loading doses of ticagrelor 180 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion (with provision for additional 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention), patients will receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 6 to 12 months on top of acetylsalicylic acid. The primary efficacy end point is time to first occurrence of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety variable is PLATO-defined major bleeding. An extensive substudy program will explore the pathophysiology of ACS, indicators of prognosis and response to treatment, mechanisms of effect and safety of the study medications, health economics, and quality of life. CONCLUSION The PLATO study will provide a pivotal comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor with those of clopidogrel in ACS patients, together with extensive information on treatment outcomes in different subsets of ACS in a broad patient population.

Effects of thoracic epidural anesthesia on coronary arteries and arterioles in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND The aim of this prospective, multicenter study was the identification of Doppler flow velocity measurements predictive of clinical outcome of patients undergoing single-vessel balloon angioplasty with no previous Q-wave myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS In 297 patients, a Doppler guidewire was used to measure basal and maximal hyperemic flow velocities proximal and distal to the stenosis before and after angioplasty. In 225 patients with an angiographically successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), postprocedural distal coronary flow reserve (CFR) and percent diameter stenosis (DS%) were correlated with symptoms and/or ischemia at 1 and 6 months, with the need for target lesion revascularization, and with angiographic restenosis (defined as DS > or = 50% at follow-up). Logistic regression and receiver operator characteristic curve analyses were applied to determine the prognostic cutoff value of CFR and DS separately and in combination. Optimal cutoff criteria for predictors of these clinical events were DS, 35%; CFR, 2.5. A distal CFR after angioplasty > 2.5 with a residual DS < or = 35% identified lesions with a low incidence of recurrence of symptoms at 1 month (10% versus 19%, P=.149) and at 6 months (23% versus 47%, P=.005), a low need for reintervention (16% versus 34%, P=.024), and a low restenosis rate (16% versus 41%, P=.002) compared with patients who did not meet these criteria. CONCLUSIONS Measurements of distal CFR after PTCA, in combination with DS%, have a predictive value, albeit modest for the short- and long-term outcomes after PTCA, and thus may be used to identify patients who will or will not benefit from additional therapy such as stent implantation.