Hans-Jürgen Rupprecht

Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study

BACKGROUNDnDespite the use of aspirin, there is still a risk of ischaemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to find out whether, in addition to aspirin, pretreatment with clopidogrel followed by long-term therapy after PCI is superior to a strategy of no pretreatment and short-term therapy for only 4 weeks after PCI.nnnMETHODSn2658 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI in the CURE study had been randomly assigned double-blind treatment with clopidogrel (n=1313) or placebo (n=1345). Patients were pretreated with aspirin and study drug for a median of 6 days before PCI during the initial hospital admission, and for a median of 10 days overall. After PCI, most patients (>80%) in both groups received open-label thienopyridine for about 4 weeks, after which study drug was restarted for a mean of 8 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularisation within 30 days of PCI. The main analysis was by intention to treat.nnnFINDINGSnThere were no drop-outs. 59 (4.5%) patients in the clopidogrel group had the primary endpoint, compared with 86 (6.4%) in the placebo group (relative risk 0.70 [95% CI 0.50-0.97], p=0.03). Long-term administration of clopidogrel after PCI was associated with a lower rate of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation (p=0.03), and of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.047). Overall (including events before and after PCI) there was a 31% reduction cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (p=0.002). There was less use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the clopidogrel group (p=0.001). At follow-up, there was no significant difference in major bleeding between the groups (p=0.64).nnnINTERPRETATIONnIn patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving aspirin, a strategy of clopidogrel pretreatment followed by long-term therapy is beneficial in reducing major cardiovascular events, compared with placebo.

Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUNDnClopidogrel was superior to aspirin in patients with previous manifestations of atherothrombotic disease in the CAPRIE study and its benefit was amplified in some high-risk subgroups of patients. We aimed to assess whether addition of aspirin to clopidogrel could have a greater benefit than clopidogrel alone in prevention of vascular events with potentially higher bleeding risk.nnnMETHODSnWe did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare aspirin (75 mg/day) with placebo in 7599 high-risk patients with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack and at least one additional vascular risk factor who were already receiving clopidogrel 75 mg/day. Duration of treatment and follow-up was 18 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, vascular death, or rehospitalisation for acute ischaemia (including rehospitalisation for transient ischaemic attack, angina pectoris, or worsening of peripheral arterial disease). Analysis was by intention to treat, using logrank test and a Coxs proportional-hazards model.nnnFINDINGSn596 (15.7%) patients reached the primary endpoint in the group receiving aspirin and clopidogrel compared with 636 (16.7%) in the clopidogrel alone group (relative risk reduction 6.4%, [95% CI -4.6 to 16.3]; absolute risk reduction 1% [-0.6 to 2.7]). Life-threatening bleedings were higher in the group receiving aspirin and clopidogrel versus clopidogrel alone (96 [2.6%] vs 49 [1.3%]; absolute risk increase 1.3% [95% CI 0.6 to 1.9]). Major bleedings were also increased in the group receiving aspirin and clopidogrel but no difference was recorded in mortality.nnnINTERPRETATIONnAdding aspirin to clopidogrel in high-risk patients with recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack is associated with a non-significant difference in reducing major vascular events. However, the risk of life-threatening or major bleeding is increased by the addition of aspirin.

Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUNDnClopidogrel and aspirin are the most commonly used antiplatelet therapies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of various clopidogrel and aspirin regimens in prevention of major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI.nnnMETHODSnThe CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was undertaken in 597 centres in 39 countries. 25,086 individuals with acute coronary syndromes and intended early PCI were randomly assigned to double-dose (600 mg on day 1, 150 mg on days 2-7, then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg on day 1 then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel, and high-dose (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose (75-100 mg daily) aspirin. Randomisation was done with a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system. The clopidogrel dose comparison was double-blind and the aspirin dose comparison was open label with blinded assessment of outcomes. This prespecified analysis is of the 17,263 individuals who underwent PCI. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat, adjusted for propensity to undergo PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00335452.nnnFINDINGSn8560 patients were assigned to double-dose and 8703 to standard-dose clopidogrel (8558 and 8702 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively), and 8624 to high-dose and 8639 to low-dose aspirin (8622 and 8638 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively). Compared with the standard dose, double-dose clopidogrel reduced the rate of the primary outcome (330 events [3·9%] vs 392 events [4·5%]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·74-0·99, p=0·039) and definite stent thrombosis (58 [0·7%] vs 111 [1·3%]; 0·54 [0·39-0·74], p=0·0001). High-dose and low-dose aspirin did not differ for the primary outcome (356 [4·1%] vs 366 [4·2%]; 0·98, 0·84-1·13, p=0·76). Major bleeding was more common with double-dose than with standard-dose clopidogrel (139 [1·6%] vs 99 [1·1%]; 1·41, 1·09-1·83, p=0·009) and did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin (128 [1·5%] vs 110 [1·3%]; 1·18, 0·92-1·53, p=0·20).nnnINTERPRETATIONnIn patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes, a 7-day double-dose clopidogrel regimen was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis compared with the standard dose. Efficacy and safety did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin. A double-dose clopidogrel regimen can be considered for all patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with an early invasive strategy and intended early PCI.nnnFUNDINGnSanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUNDnEarlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain.nnnMETHODSnWe randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months.nnnRESULTSnCoronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity).nnnCONCLUSIONSnEarly intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

A Randomized Study of Coronary Angioplasty Compared with Bypass Surgery in Patients with Symptomatic Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUNDnThe standard treatment for patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease is coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) is widely used as an alternative approach to revascularization, but a systematic comparison of the two procedures is needed. We compared the outcomes in patients one year after complete revascularization with CABG or PTCA.nnnMETHODSnA total of 8981 patients with multivessel coronary disease were screened at eight clinical sites, and 359 patients were randomly assigned to undergo CABG (177 patients) or PTCA (182 patients). Enrollment required that complete revascularization of at least two major vessels supplying different myocardial regions be deemed clinically necessary and technically feasible.nnnRESULTSnAmong the patients in the CABG group, an average of 2.2 +/- 0.6 vessels were grafted, and among those in the PTCA group, 1.9 +/- 0.5 vessels were dilated. After CABG, hospitalization was longer (median, 19, as compared with 5 days for PTCA), and Q-wave myocardial infarction in relation to the procedure was more frequent (8.1 percent, as compared with 2.3 percent after PTCA; P = 0.022), whereas in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (2.5 percent in the CABG group and 1.1 percent in the PTCA group). At discharge 93 percent of the patients in the CABG group were free of angina, as compared with 82 percent of those in the PTCA group (P = 0.005). During the first year of follow-up, further interventions were necessary in 44 percent of the patients in the PTCA group (repeated PTCA in 23 percent, CABG in 18 percent, and both in 3 percent) but in only 6 percent of the patients in the CABG group (repeated CABG in 1 percent and PTCA in 5 percent; P < 0.001). Seventy-four percent of the patients in the CABG group and 71 percent of those in the PTCA group were free of angina one year after treatment. Exercise capacity improved similarly in both groups. However, 22 percent of the CABG group, as compared with only 12 percent of the PTCA group, did not require antianginal medication (P = 0.041).nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn selected patients with multivessel coronary disease, PTCA and CABG as initial treatments resulted in equivalent improvement in angina after one year. However, in order to achieve similar clinical outcomes, the patients treated with PTCA were more likely to require further interventions and antianginal drugs, whereas the patients treated with CABG were more likely to sustain an acute myocardial infarction at the time of the procedure.

Coronary-artery stenting compared with balloon angioplasty for restenosis after initial balloon angioplasty. Restenosis Stent Study Group.

BACKGROUNDnIntracoronary stenting reduces the rate of restenosis after angioplasty in patients with new coronary lesions. We conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to determine whether intracoronary stenting, as compared with standard balloon angioplasty, reduces the recurrence of luminal narrowing in restenotic lesions.nnnMETHODSnA total of 383 patients who had undergone at least one balloon angioplasty and who had clinical and angiographic evidence of restenosis after the procedure were randomly assigned to undergo standard balloon angioplasty (192 patients) or intracoronary stenting with a Palmaz-Schatz stent (191 patients). The primary end point was angiographic evidence of restenosis (defined as stenosis of more than 50 percent of the luminal diameter) at six months. The secondary end points were death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, bypass surgery, and revascularization of the target vessel.nnnRESULTSnThe rate of restenosis was significantly higher in the angioplasty group than in the stent group (32 percent as compared with 18 percent, P= 0.03). Revascularization of the target vessel at six months was required in 27 percent of the angioplasty group but in only 10 percent of the stent group (P=0.001). This difference resulted from a smaller mean (+/-SD) minimal luminal diameter in the angioplasty group (1.85+/-0.56 mm) than in the stent group (2.04+/-0.66 mm), with a mean difference of 0.19 mm (P=0.01) at follow-up. Subacute thrombosis occurred in 0.6 percent of the angioplasty group and in 3.9 percent of the stent group. The rate of event-free survival at 250 days was 72 percent in the angioplasty group and 84 percent in the stent group (P=0.04).nnnCONCLUSIONSnElective coronary stenting was effective in the treatment of restenosis after balloon angioplasty. Stenting resulted in a lower rate of recurrent stenosis despite a higher incidence of subacute thrombosis.

Design and rationale of CURRENT-OASIS 7: A randomized, 2 × 2 factorial trial evaluating optimal dosing strategies for clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with ST and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy

BACKGROUNDnAntiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) reduces major cardiovascular events in patients with ST and non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Recent mechanistic and clinical data suggest that higher loading and maintenance doses of clopidogrel may achieve a more rapid and greater degree of platelet inhibition that translates into improved clinical outcomes, but this is yet to be formally evaluated in an adequately powered randomized trial.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of (1) a higher loading and initial maintenance dose of clopidogrel compared with the standard-dose regimen and (2) high-dose ASA compared with low-dose ASA in patients with ST or non-ST-segment-elevation ACS managed with an early invasive strategy.nnnDESIGNnMulticenter, international, randomized, 2 x 2 factorial design trial evaluating a clopidogrel high-dose regimen (600 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 150 mg once daily on days 2 to 7, followed by 75 mg once daily on days 8-30) compared with the standard-dose regimen (300 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 75 mg once daily on days 2-30) and high-dose ASA (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose ASA (75-100 mg daily) in patients with ST or non-ST-segment-elevation ACS managed with an early invasive strategy. The clopidogrel dose comparison is double-blind and the ASA dose comparison is open-label. The primary outcome is the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial (re)infarction or stroke up to day 30. The primary safety outcome is major bleeding. The sample size is 18,000 to 20,000 patients.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial will help to define optimal dosing regimens for clopidogrel and ASA in patients with ST and non-ST-segment-elevation ACS treated with an early invasive strategy.

Choice of arterial access site and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy: the ACUITY trial.

AIMSnThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of arterial access site on bleeding and ischaemic outcomes, overall and by treatment strategy, in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).nnnMETHODS AND RESULTSnIn the ACUITY trial, 13,819 patients with moderate and high-risk ACS were randomised to either heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), bivalirudin plus a GPI, or bivalirudin alone. Per operator choice, femoral access was utilised in 11,989 patients (93.8%) and radial access in 798 patients (6.2%). There was no significant difference in composite ischaemia between the radial and femoral approaches at 30 days (8.1% vs 7.5%, p=0.18) or 1 year (14.7% vs 15.5%, p=0.77), although fewer major bleeding complications occurred with the use of radial access (3.0%vs4.8%, p=0.03). Use of bivalirudin monotherapy was associated with significantly less 30-day major bleeding than heparin plus GPI after femoral access (3.0% vs 5.8%, p<0.0001), but not with radial access (4.2% vs 2.2%, P=0.19). Major or minor organ bleeding was reduced with bivalirudin monotherapy compared to heparin plus GPI to a similar extent with both femoral (4.1% vs 7.4%, P<0.0001) and radial (4.9% vs 7.2%, P=0.26) access.nnnCONCLUSIONSnTransradial compared to femoral arterial access is associated with similar rates of composite ischaemia and with fewer major bleeding complications in patients with ACS managed invasively. Bivalirudin monotherapy compared to heparin plus GPIs significantly reduces access site related major bleeding complications with femoral but not radial artery access, though non-access site related bleeding is reduced by bivalirudin monotherapy in all patients.

Management of Atherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Recent Transient Ischaemic Attack or Ischaemic Stroke (MATCH): Study Design and Baseline Data

Background: The CAPRIE study showed the superiority of clopidogrel over acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for reducing the combined risk of major atherothrombotic events in patients with recent myocardial infarction (MI), recent ischaemic stroke (IS) or established peripheral arterial disease. The benefit of clopidogrel over ASA is amplified in high-risk patients. Proof of concept for the benefit of clopidogrel in addition to ASA in patients with coronary manifestations of atherothrombosis was provided by the CURE trial. Methods: MATCH is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that compares clopidogrel and ASA versus clopidogrel alone in high-risk patients with recently symptomatic cerebrovascular disease. Eligible patients have experienced a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or IS within the last 3 months and have evidence of at least 1 additional risk factor within the last 3 years (prior IS, MI, stable or unstable angina pectoris, diabetes or symptomatic peripheral arterial disease). Patients were randomized to receive ASA 75 mg once daily or placebo, with both groups receiving clopidogrel 75 mg once daily as part of standard therapy. The primary end point is the composite of IS, MI, vascular death and rehospitalization for an acute ischaemic event. The duration of treatment and follow-up is 18 months for each patient. Results: Enrolment was completed in April 2002, with 7,599 patients randomized to receive the study medication. The mean age at randomization was 66 years, and the qualifying event was IS in 78.9% of patients and TIA in 21.1%. The baseline features of the study cohort indicate a population that is at a high risk for atherothrombotic recurrence. Conclusion: MATCH is a major ongoing trial that will provide important data on the benefit of clopidogrel and ASA compared with clopidogrel alone for reduction of vascular ischaemic events in patients with recent TIA or IS who are at high risk of atherothrombotic event recurrence.

Recombinant Hirudin (HBW 023) Prevents Troponin T Release After Coronary Angioplasty in Patients With Unstable Angina

OBJECTIVESnThis study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of peri-interventional treatment with recombinant hirudin (r-hirudin [HBW 023]) compared with heparin in the prevention of troponin T release in patients with unstable angina.nnnBACKGROUNDnPercutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with unstable angina is associated with a high risk of acute thrombotic complications.nnnMETHODSnSerial troponin T measurements were performed in 61 patients with unstable angina during the 48-h observation period after coronary angioplasty of the ischemia-related lesion. Patients were randomly assigned to peri-interventional intravenous treatment with either r-hirudin (dosage group I: 0.3-mg/kg body weight bolus, 0.12 mg/kg per h for 24 h; dosage group II: 0.5-mg/kg bolus, 0.24 mg/kg per h for 24 h) or heparin (150-IU/kg bolus, 20 IU/kg per h for 24 h). All patients received acetylsalicylic acid before coronary angiography. After 24 h, patients received a constant low dose infusion of either hirudin (0.04 mg/kg per h) or heparin (7 IU/kg per h) for another 24 h. The power of the study to detect a decrease in abnormal troponin T levels from 60% (heparin group) to 20% (combined r-hirudin groups) was 88%.nnnRESULTSnSerial troponin T measurements revealed two peaks within the 48 h after coronary angioplasty in the heparin but not the hirudin groups. An elevated serum troponin T concentration (> 0.2 ng/ml) within 48 h of coronary angioplasty was found in 9 (24%) of 38 patients in the hirudin groups (5 [25%] of 20 in dosage group I; 4 [22%] of 18 in dosage group II) compared with 11 (58%) of 19 in the heparin group (p = 0.01). We observed major cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, abrupt vessel closure) in 1 (4.8%) of 21 patients in dosage group I, 1 (5.3%) of 19 in dosage group II and 3 (14.3%) of 21 in the heparin group (p = 0.33).nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn this pilot trial, hirudin appears to be superior to heparin in preventing troponin T release after coronary angioplasty.