ED administration of thienopyridines in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the NCDR

Relative efficacy and safety of ticagelor vs clopidogrel as a function of time to invasive management in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO trial

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest that "upstream" P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists should be considered in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS).

HYPOTHESIS

Early use of ticagrelor in patients managed with an invasive strategy would be more effective than clopidogrel because of its more rapid onset of action and greater potency.

METHODS

In the PLATO trial, 6792 NSTE-ACS patients were randomized to ticagrelor or clopidogrel (started prior to angiography) and underwent angiography within 72 hours of randomization. We compared efficacy and safety outcomes of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel as a function of "early" (<3h) vs "late" (≥3h) time to angiography. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated interaction between randomized treatment and time from randomization to angiography on subsequent outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, a benefit of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel for cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke was seen at day 7 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, P = 0.002), day 30 (HR: 0.81, P = 0.042), and 1 year (HR: 0.80, P = 0.0045). There were no significant interactions in the <3h vs ≥3h groups at any timepoint. For major bleeding, overall there was no significant increase (HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.27); but there was a significant interaction with no difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the early group (HR: 0.79), but higher bleeding risk with ticagrelor in the late angiography group, at 7 days (HR: 1.51, P_int = 0.002). Patterns were similar at 30 days and 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was consistent in those undergoing early and late angiography, supporting upstream use of ticagrelor.

Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Background

P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices.

Methods and Results

Using ACTION Registry‐GWTG (Get‐with‐the‐Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients.

Conclusions

With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.