Are Antiplatelet Agents Beneficial in Prevention of Infective Endocarditis?

Aspirin or Ticagrelor in Staphylococcus aureus Infective Endocarditis: Where Do We Stand?

Infective endocarditis is a challenging disease with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Antibiotic prophylaxis is currently recommended in high-risk infective endocarditis patients. However, the use of antibiotics faces the challenge of a low efficacy and contributes further to the emerging infection rate by antibiotic-resistant strains, emphasizing the need for new therapeutic strategies. Platelets are essential in the initial phase of infective endocarditis, acting as first-line immune responders. During the first phase of disease, bacteria can interact with platelets and counteract platelet antimicrobial activities. Mechanistic in vitro and animal studies on the effect of aspirin on bacteria-platelet interactions and the prevention of vegetation development showed promising results. However, data from clinical studies on the outcome of infective endocarditis patients who were receiving medically indicated aspirin therapy remain controversial. Therefore, the benefit of antiplatelet agents in infective endocarditis prevention has been questioned. Besides aspirin, it has been discovered that the platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor has antibacterial properties in addition to its potent antiplatelet activity. Furthermore, a recent study in mice and a case report remarkably indicated the ability of this drug to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. This review will focus on current knowledge on antibacterial activity of ticagrelor, compared to aspirin, pointing out main unanswered questions. The goal is to provide food for thought as to whether a prior ticagrelor therapy might be beneficial for the prevention of infective endocarditis.

Ticagrelor and Infection Risk in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Ticagrelor has a bactericidal effect in vitro, and clinical studies suggest a beneficial effect in infections. Our aim was to determine the incidence of infections in patients treated with 3 different P2Y12 receptor inhibitors.

METHODS

Retrospective registry in a cardiology department. Patients with coronary artery disease discharged on ticagrelor, prasugrel, or clopidogrel from March 2017 to June 2019 were included. The risk of infection was analyzed during the period of P2Y12 inhibitor treatment (12.4 ± 6.7 months).

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients were included (ticagrelor 91 [36.4%], prasugrel 89 [35.6%], clopidogrel 70 [28.0%]). Mean age was 61.0 ± 13.1 years, and 63 (25.2%) were women. The most common reason to use these drugs was ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) (152 patients - 60.8%). STEMI was the reason to use prasugrel in 84 patients (94.4%), ticagrelor in 44 (48.4%), and clopidogrel in 24 (34.3%), p < 0.001. An infection during follow-up was seen in 87 patients (34.8%), 23 treated with ticagrelor (25.3%), 30 with prasugrel (33.7%) and 34 with clopidogrel (48.6%), p = 0.009. Ticagrelor was independently associated with a lower likelihood of infection (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.95; p = 0.035) compared to prasugrel (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54-1.73; p = 0.909) and clopidogrel (HR = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients admitted with coronary artery disease patients treated with ticagrelor had a lower frequency of infections during follow-up than those treated with other P2Y12 inhibitors. Further studies are necessary to clarify the bactericidal effect of ticagrelor in this context.