Salvatore Colangelo

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Comparison of Angioplasty With Infusion of Tirofiban or Abciximab and With Implantation of Sirolimus-Eluting or Uncoated Stents for Acute Myocardial Infarction: The MULTISTRATEGY Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. INTERVENTIONS High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. RESULTS ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

Intensifying Platelet Inhibition With Tirofiban in Poor Responders to Aspirin, Clopidogrel, or Both Agents Undergoing Elective Coronary Intervention Results From the Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel Study

Background— Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown. Methods and Results— We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P=0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P=0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions— In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome Based on Aspirin and Clopidogrel Responsiveness Status After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) Trial Substudy

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial. BACKGROUND The impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated. METHODS Aspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year. RESULTS Overall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p=0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12 reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p=0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.8). CONCLUSIONS Poor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.

Prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes using the SYNTAX score in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined. METHODS SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SX(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 311), 9 < SX(MID) ≤ 16 (n = 234), SX(HIGH) >16 (n = 262). RESULTS At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515).

Is Bare-Metal Stent Implantation Still Justifiable in High Bleeding Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?: A Pre-Specified Analysis From the ZEUS Trial.

OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of patients fulfilling high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria who were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation followed by an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for stable or unstable coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND DES instead of BMS use remains controversial in HBR patients, in whom long-term DAPT poses safety concerns. METHODS The ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates) is a multinational, randomized single-blinded trial that randomized among others, in a stratified manner, 828 patients fulfilling pre-defined clinical or biochemical HBR criteria-including advanced age, indication to oral anticoagulants or other pro-hemorrhagic medications, history of bleeding and known anemia-to receive E-ZES or BMS followed by a protocol-mandated 30-day DAPT regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was the 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event rate, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS Compared with patients without, those with 1 or more HBR criteria had worse outcomes, owing to higher ischemic and bleeding risks. Among HBR patients, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 22.6% of the E-ZES and 29% of the BMS patients (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.98; p = 0.033), driven by lower myocardial infarction (3.5% vs. 10.4%; p < 0.001) and target vessel revascularization (5.9% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.005) rates in the E-ZES arm. The composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced in E-ZES recipients, whereas bleeding events did not differ between stent groups. CONCLUSIONS Among HBR patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease, E-ZES implantation provides superior efficacy and safety as compared with conventional BMS. (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates [ZEUS]; NCT01385319).

Three-year follow-up of the MULTIcentre evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting STEnt or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction StudY (MULTISTRATEGY)

BACKGROUND The Multicentre Evaluation of Single high-dose Bolus TiRofiban versus Abciximab with Sirolimus-eluting Stent or Bare Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study [MULTISTRATEGY]) randomised 745 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction to receive high-dose bolus (HDB) tirofiban or abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting (SES) or uncoated-stent (BMS) implantation. Tirofiban was non-inferior to abciximab in terms of ST-segment resolution after intervention, whereas 8 month-major adverse cardiac events occurred in 14.5% in the BMS and 7.8% in the SES groups (P = 0.0039), reflecting a reduction of reintervention rates (10.2% vs. 3.2%). A three-year follow-up was performed to extend previous short- to mid-term findings. METHODS AND RESULTS Complete data at 3 years was available for 736 patients (99%). All-cause mortality was 6.7% in the tirofiban and 7.8% in the abciximab (P = 0.56) and 7.5% in the BMS vs 7.0 in the SES groups, P = 0.79. The composite of all-cause death or MI was identical at 12.9% in tirofiban and abciximab groups, P = 0.99 and it occurred in 13.2% in the BMS vs. 12.6% in the SES groups (P = 0.83). The need for reintervention remained more than twice as common with BMS (13.7%; versus 6.2%, P = 0.0006). The cumulative rate of stent thrombosis (ST) did not differ. This is inspite of a higher very late definite, probable or possible ST thrombosis rate in the SES group. CONCLUSIONS The 3-year follow-up of MULTISTRATEGY demonstrated comparable outcomes with HDB Tirofiban or abciximab and a sustained efficacy of SES to reduce reintervention with no difference in death, repeat MI or ST.

Does the site of bleeding matter? A stratified analysis on location of TIMI-graded bleedings and their impact on 12-month outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS While bleeding in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is known to be associated with poor outcomes, the differential prognostic impact of access-site related versus non access-site related bleedings is unknown. We aimed to assess the relative impact of access-site related bleeding, as compared to non access-site related, on 12-month clinical outcome in patients undergoing intervention for STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS Thirty-day bleeding endpoints, stratified into access-site versus non access-site, were examined according to the TIMI scale in 744 patients with STEMI enrolled in the MULTISTRATEGY trial. TIMI major or minor bleeding complications occurred in 56 (7.5%) patients within 30 days, 46% had an access-site related bleed and 34% required blood transfusion. Bleeding severity and the need for transfusion were equally distributed between site access- versus non-site access-related bleeds. After adjustment, patients with any TIMI rated bleed were more likely to die or develop recurrent MI within 12 months (HR 2.1 [95% CI: 1.13-3.8]; p=0.02). This ratio was entirely driven by non-site access-related bleeds (adjusted HR: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.21-5.8]; p=0.007), whereas site-access bleeds were not associated with worse outcomes (HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.16-3.4]; p=0.70). CONCLUSIONS While bleeds of any TIMI severity within 30 days were independently associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months, thus confirming previous analyses, this relationship was entirely driven in our study by non access-site related haemorrhagic events. Investigation on whether the site of bleeding complications may preferentially impact cardiovascular outcomes is warranted.

Sex-specific benefits of sirolimus-eluting stent on long-term outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study trial.

OBJECTIVES We assessed the relation between female sex and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) use on long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND There are no data on sex-specific differences in long-term benefit of SES use compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) use among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions. METHODS We performed a post hoc analysis of the MULTISTRATEGY trial. Hazard ratios (HRs) of events with 95% CI for sex and stent type were computed using Cox proportional regression with adjustment for confounders. RESULTS A total of 744 patients, 64 years old (55-73 years old), 179 (24.1%) women, were enrolled. After a follow-up of 1,080 days, SES use was associated with a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events, that is, the composite of all-cause death, reinfarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) (13.9% vs 23.6%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94, P = .026) and of TVR (6.1% vs 15.1%, adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63, P < .001) in men. Conversely, SES use was not associated to a better outcome among women (major adverse cardiovascular events 21.9% in SES vs 18.2% in the BMS group, adjusted HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53-3.02, P = .59; TVR 6.6% vs 9.1%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.21, P = .46). CONCLUSIONS In this analysis, the clinical benefit of SES use, over BMS, at 3-year follow-up was restricted to men and was not observed among women.

Culprit plaque characteristics in younger versus older patients with acute coronary syndromes: An optical coherence tomography study from the FORMIDABLE registry

Culprit plaque characteristics in young patients who experience an Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) evaluated by OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) have to be defined. The OCT‐FORMIDABLE is a multicentre retrospective registry enrolling consecutive patients with ACS who performed OCT in 9 European centres.