Extended duration dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with myocardial infarction: A study-level meta-analysis of controlled randomized trials

The Impact of American College of Cardiology Chest Pain Center Accreditation on Guideline Recommended Acute Myocardial Infarction Management

BACKGROUND

Whether American College of Cardiology (ACC) Chest Pain Center (CPC) accreditation alters guidelines adherence rates is unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level, hospital-reported, quality metrics for myocardial infarction (MI) patients from 644 hospitals collected in the ACC's Chest Pain-MI Registry from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020, stratified by CPC accreditation for >1 year.

RESULTS

Of 192,374 MI patients, 67,462 (35.1%) received care at an accredited hospital. In general, differences in guideline adherence rates between accredited and nonaccredited hospitals were numerically small, although frequently significant. Patients at accredited hospitals were more likely to undergo coronary angiography (98.6% vs. 97.9%, P < 0.0001), percutaneous coronary intervention for NSTEMI (55.4% vs. 52.3%, P < 0.0001), have overall revascularization for NSTEMI (63.5% vs. 61.0%, P < 0.0001), and receive P2Y12 inhibitor on arrival (63.5% vs. 60.2%, P < 0.0001). Nonaccredited hospitals more ECG within 10 minutes (62.3% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.0001) and first medical contact to device activation ≤90 minutes (66.8% vs. 64.8%, P < 0.0001). Accredited hospitals had uniformly higher discharge medication guideline adherence, with patients more likely receiving aspirin (97.8% vs. 97.4%, P < 0.0001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (46.7% vs. 45.3%, P < 0.0001), beta blocker (96.6% vs. 96.2%, P < 0.0001), P2Y12 inhibitor (90.3% vs. 89.2%, P < 0.0001), and statin (97.8% vs. 97.5%, P < 0.0001). Interaction by accredited status was significant only for length of stay, which was slightly shorter at accredited facilities for specific subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

ACC CPC accreditation was associated with small consistent improvement in adherence to guideline-based treatment recommendations of catheter-based care (catheterization and PCI) for NSTEMI and discharge medications, and shorter hospital stays.

Prevention of ischaemic events in subjects with polydistrict vascular disease

The incidence of new cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome remains high, particularly in the presence of concomitant high thrombotic risk factors (diabetes mellitus, renal failure, multivessel coronary artery disease, multiple district atherosclerosis, recurrent events, heart failure). The risk of such recurrent events can be reduced by implementing various strategies, which include careful individual stratification of ischaemic and haemorrhagic risk and the choice of the most appropriate antithrombotic therapy for the individual patient, also by combining aspirin with a second antiplatelet agent/a low-dose anticoagulant, in order to achieve the maximum net clinical benefit.

Updated antithrombotic strategies to reduce the burden of cardiovascular recurrences in patients with chronic coronary syndrome

Despite recent achievements in secondary cardiovascular prevention, the risk of further events in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) remains elevated. Highest risk is seen in patients with recurrent events, comorbidities or multisite atherosclerosis. Optimising antithrombotic strategies in this setting may significantly improve outcomes. The higher the baseline risk, the higher the absolute event reduction with approaches using combined antithrombotic treatments. Tailoring such strategies to the individual patient risk appears crucial to achieve net benefit (i.e., substantial ischaemic event prevention at a limited cost in terms of bleeding). This paper focuses on antithrombotic and non-pharmacological approaches to secondary cardiovascular disease prevention in CCS. In particular, we critically review current evidence on the use of dual antithrombotic therapy, including the newest approach of aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulation and its net clinical outcome according to baseline risk.

Prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 2-year findings from EPICOR Asia

Background

Patients with non‐ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) have a generally poor prognosis and antithrombotic management patterns (AMPs) used post‐acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain unclear. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and patient characteristics was evaluated in NSTEMI patients enrolled in EPICOR Asia.

Hypothesis

Patients stopping DAPT early may benefit from more intensive monitoring.

Methods

EPICOR Asia was a prospective, real‐world, primary data collection, cohort study in adults with an ACS, conducted in eight countries/regions in Asia, with 2 year follow‐up. Eligible patients were hospitalized within 48 hours of symptom onset and survived to discharge. We describe AMPs and baseline characteristics in NSTEMI patients surviving ≥12 months with DAPT duration ≤12 and > 12 months post‐discharge. Clinical outcomes (composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; and bleeding) were also explored.

Results

At discharge, 90.8% of patients were on DAPT (including clopidogrel, 99%). At 1‐ and 2‐year follow‐up, this was 79.2% and 60.0%. Patients who stopped DAPT ≤12 months post‐discharge tended to be older, female, less obese, have prior cardiovascular disease, and have renal dysfunction. While causality cannot be inferred, the incidence of the composite endpoint over the subsequent 12 months was 10.6% and 3.1% with shorter vs longer use of DAPT, and mortality risk over the same period was 8.4% and 1.6%.

Conclusions

Over 90% of NSTEMI patients were discharged on DAPT, with 60% on DAPT at 2 years. Patients stopping DAPT early were more likely to have higher baseline risk and may therefore benefit from more intensive monitoring during long‐term follow‐up.

Extended Duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at elevated risk of ischemic and bleeding events. However, the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI in patients with PAD remains unclear.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed through June 2017 using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases with the following key terms: “dual antiplatelet therapy”, “P2Y12 inhibitor”, “myocardial infarction”, “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “stent”, “peripheral arterial disease”, and “ankle-brachial index”. The analysis was restricted to randomized trials published in English in patients with PAD receiving extended DAPT (> 12-month) after PCI. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 with the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results

Two randomized controlled trials involving 895 patients were included in this review. Compared to the placebo group, there was no statistical significance in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients receiving extended DAPT (odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 - 1.57; P = 0.46). The results were associated with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71%, P = 0.07). Extended DAPT was not significantly associated with increased moderate/severe bleeding events (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 - 3.18; P = 0.15; I² = 0%, P = 0.59). The extended DAPT was associated with 82% relative risk reduction in the events of definite/probably stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

Among patients with PAD, extended DAPT after PCI resulted in a non-significant difference in ischemic and bleeding events compared to placebo, respectively. The routine use of extended DAPT in this cohort should be carefully evaluated.

Prevalence and predictors of dual antiplatelet therapy prolongation beyond one year in patients with acute coronary syndrome

There are limited real-world data on prevalence and predictors of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) prolongation beyond one year after acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We have explored such issue in the START ANTIPLATELET Registry, which is a prospective, observational, multicenter, Italian registry performed in seven Italian cardiology institutions including patients admitted for ACS and followed up to one year. Out of a total population of 840 ACS patients, 596 patients had completed 12-month follow-up being on DAPT. Decision to prolong DAPT beyond one year was taken in 79 patients (13%), whereas in 517 patients DAPT was stopped. The strongest predictors of DAPT continuation were a new cardiovascular events after the index admission event (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.4-7.7), no bleeding complications (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.2-8.3) and no anemia during one-year follow-up (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-5.9); other independent predictors were renal failure (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-5.0) and peripheral artery disease (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.0). The choice of DAPT prolongation was not correlated with younger ager, presence of diabetes mellitus, coronary angioplasty as initial treatment strategy or type of implanted stent (drug-eluting vs bare metal). In conclusion, this study provides a real-world snapshot on the factors influencing the option to continue DAPT beyond one year after ACS; a low bleeding risk seems to influence the choice to prolong DAPT more than a high ischemic risk.

Antiplatelet Therapy for Secondary Prevention After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) are at long-term heightened risk for recurrent ischemic events. Several large randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of more intensive antiplatelet strategies for long-term secondary prevention of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, and stroke in patients with a history of MI at a cost of increased bleeding. The bleeding risk associated with long-term intensive antiplatelet strategies requires careful patient selection and involvement of patients in shared decision making regarding risks and benefits of therapy. Clinical characteristics, adherence to therapy, and integrated risk scores may aid clinicians in translating clinical trials into individualized therapy.