Debate: Prasugrel rather than ticagrelor is the preferred treatment for NSTE-ACS patients who proceed to PCI and pretreatment should not be performed in patients planned for an early invasive strategy

Acute Coronary Syndrome in Elderly Patients: How to Tackle Them?

Elderly patients diagnosed with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a growing demographic population. These patients typically present more comorbidities and experience poorer outcomes compared to younger patients. Furthermore, they are less frequently subjected to revascularization procedures and are less likely to receive evidence-based medications in both the short and long-term periods. Assessing frailty is crucial in elderly patients with ACS because it can influence management decisions, as well as risk stratification and prognosis. Indeed, treatment decisions should consider geriatric syndromes, frailty, polypharmacy, sarcopenia, nutritional deficits, prevalence of comorbidities, thrombotic risk, and, at the same time, an increased risk of bleeding. Rigorous clinical assessments, clear revascularization criteria, and tailored approaches to antithrombotic therapy are essential for guiding personalized treatment decisions in these individuals. Assessing frailty helps healthcare providers identify patients who may benefit from targeted interventions to improve their outcomes and quality of life. Elderly individuals who experience ACS remain significantly underrepresented and understudied in randomized controlled trials. For this reason, the occurrence of ACS in the elderly continues to be a particularly complex issue in clinical practice, and one that clinicians increasingly have to address, given the general ageing of populations. This review aims to address the complex aspects of elderly patients with ACS to help clinicians make therapeutic decisions when faced with such situations.

Individualising Antithrombotic Strategies for Acute and Chronic Coronary Syndromes

For patients presenting with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, current guideline recommendations and expert consensus provide a range of options for antithrombotic treatment. The European Society of Cardiology 2023 guidelines on the management of acute coronary syndrome emphasise the need to assess the risk of both ischaemic events and bleeding. Those with high bleeding risk warrant particular consideration of the duration and intensity of antithrombotic therapy combinations. A joint consensus of experts takes a similar approach, informed by two network meta-analyses that appraised all available antithrombotic treatments within or after the 12 months following coronary revascularisation and/or acute coronary syndrome and individual participant data from six trials. In this article, four case studies are used to illustrate how these guidelines and expert consensus recommendations can be applied in clinical practice.

Antiplatelet Therapy and Anticoagulation before, during, and after Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a major challenge in clinical practice, requiring rapid and effective antithrombotic treatment to mitigate adverse ischemic events while minimizing the risk of bleeding. In recent years, results from several clinical trials addressing this issue through various approaches have substantially improved the treatment landscape for patients presenting with ACS. The emergence of new, potent P2Y12 inhibitors has significantly enhanced thrombotic risk reduction and different strategies for de-escalating and shortening dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) have demonstrated promising outcomes in reducing bleeding rates. Furthermore, data from ongoing trials focusing on novel therapeutic agents and investigating alternative treatment strategies to optimize outcomes for ACS patients are expected in the next few years. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge and emphasize the critical role of individualized treatment approaches tailored to patient-specific risk factors and individual clinical scenarios.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: similarities and differences between a European expert consensus document and the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients.

Real-World Evidence on Disparities on the Initiation of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background Management of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is based on 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which recommend the preferential use of prasugrel over ticagrelor. Because the selection of the respective P2Y12 inhibitor has to consider label restrictions, we sought to evaluate the proportion of patients qualifying for either ticagrelor or prasugrel and reasons for noneligibility in an unselected cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods and Results In this retrospective observational study, patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or NSTE-ACS presenting consecutively during a 24-month period were enrolled. The eligibility of patients for a dual antiplatelet therapy option was assessed retrospectively. A total of 1502 patients had confirmed acute coronary syndrome (287 STEMI and 1215 NSTE-ACS). Eligibility for ticagrelor and full-dose prasugrel differed significantly for STEMI and NSTE-ACS (93% versus 51%, P<0.0001 versus 80% versus 31%, P<0.0001). Eligibility remained significantly lower (STEMI 78% versus NSTE-ACS 52%) if low-dose prasugrel was considered. Patients eligible for full-dose prasugrel had lower ischemic risk per GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score (109 points [90-129 points] versus 121 points [98-146 points], P<0.0001) and lower bleeding risk (14 points [13-15 points] versus 20 points [12-29 points], P<0.0001) per PRECISE-DAPT (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) score. Conclusions In real life, eligibility for prasugrel in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy is considerably lower than for ticagrelor, even in a cohort with high rates of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. The recommended use of prasugrel over ticagrelor in current acute coronary syndrome guidelines contrasts with our observations of a substantial disparity on the eligibility. This important aspect has not received appropriate attention yet. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05774431.

European practice patterns for antiplatelet management in NSTE-ACS patients: Results from the REal-world ADoption survey focus on acute antiPlatelet treatment (READAPT) survey

BACKGROUND

The 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with non-ST elevation-acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) recommend early invasive coronary angiography in high-risk patients and no routine pre-treatment with oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitor in NSTE-ACS patients prior to defining coronary anatomy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the implementation of this recommendation in the real-life setting.

METHODS

A web-survey in 17 European countries collected physician profiles and their perceptions of the diagnosis, medical and invasive management of NSTE-ACS patients at their hospital. A sample size of at least 1100 responders permitted the estimation of proportions with a precision of at least ±3.0%.

RESULTS

Among the 3024 targeted participants, 1154 provided valid feedback defined as a 50% response rate of answers to the survey questions. Overall, >60% of the participants declared full implementation of the guidelines at their institution. The time delay from admission to coronary angiography and PCI was reported to be <24 h in over 75% of the hospitals while pre-treatment was intended in >50% of NSTE-ACS patients. Ad-hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in >70% of the cases while intravenous platelet inhibition was rarely used (<10%). Between countries differences in practice patterns for antiplatelet management for NSTE-ACS were observed, suggesting heterogeneous implementation of the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates that the implementation of 2020 NSTE-ACS guidelines on early invasive management and pre-treatment is heterogeneous, potentially due by local logistical constraints.

Timing, Selection, Modulation, and Duration of P2Y12 Inhibitors for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing PCI

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and the oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor clopidogrel as the cornerstone of treatment for patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was firstly established in 2001. Soon thereafter, the newer-generation P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor became commercially available. The clinical management of ACS patients undergoing PCI has evolved significantly in the last 2 decades, with a shift toward more rapid invasive management, broader use of drug-eluting stents, and the increasing recognition that major bleeding due to antiplatelet therapy is detrimental. In this ever-changing scenario, numerous studies have addressed 4 main questions regarding P2Y₁₂ inhibition in ACS patients undergoing PCI: timing, selection, modulation, and duration. This paper reviews the latest evidence surrounding these topical questions, with a focus on efficacy and safety data, practice guidelines, and residual areas of uncertainty.

Antiplatelet efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Mediterranean patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic coronary syndromes: A crossover pharmacodynamic investigation

Introduction

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have augmented platelet reactivity and diminished responsiveness to clopidogrel. Ticagrelor, a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor, is clinically superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes, although its role in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still the subject of debate. The aim of this investigation was to compare the pharmacodynamic effectiveness of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in Mediterranean DM patients with CCS.

Materials and methods

In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, patients (n = 20) were randomized (1:1) to receive, on top of aspirin therapy, either ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose (LD)/90 mg maintenance dose (MD) b.i.d. or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/75 mg MD o.d. for 1 week in a crossover fashion with a 2-4 week washout period between regimens. Platelet function measurements were performed at 4 timepoints in each period (baseline, 2 h and 24 h after LD, and 1 week), including light transmission aggregometry (LTA, primary endpoint), VASP assay, Multiplate and VerifyNow P2Y12.

Results

The ticagrelor LD achieved greater platelet inhibitory effect than clopidogrel LD, assessed with LTA (20 μM ADP as agonist), at 2 h (34.9 ± 3.9% vs. 63.6 ± 3.9%; p < 0.001) and 24 h (39.4 ± 3.5% vs. 52.3 ± 3.8%; p = 0.014). After 1 week of therapy, platelet reactivity was again significantly inferior with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel (30.7 ± 3.0% vs. 54.3 ± 3.0%; p < 0.001). The results were consistent with the other platelet function assays employed.

Conclusion

In Mediterranean patients with DM and CCS, ticagrelor provides a more potent antiplatelet effect than clopidogrel after the LD and during the maintenance phase of therapy.

Clinical trial registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT02457130].

Protease-activated receptor-mediated platelet aggregation in patients with type 2 diabetes on potent P2Y12 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet therapy is a cornerstone in the secondary prevention of ischemic events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The new P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor have been shown to improve patients' outcomes. Whether or not these drugs have equal efficacy in individuals with or without diabetes is disputed. Furthermore, platelets can be activated by thrombin, which is, at least in part, independent of P2Y₁₂ -mediated platelet activation. Protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 and -4 are thrombin receptors on human platelets. We sought to compare the in vitro efficacy of prasugrel (n = 121) and ticagrelor (n = 99) to inhibit PAR-mediated platelet aggregation in individuals with type 2 diabetes (prasugrel n = 26, ticagrelor n = 29).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We compared P2Y₁₂ -, PAR-1- and PAR-4-mediated platelet aggregation as assessed by multiple electrode platelet aggregometry between prasugrel- and ticagrelor-treated patients without and with type 2 diabetes who underwent acute PCI.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no differences of P2Y₁₂ -, PAR-1- and PAR-4-mediated platelet aggregation between prasugrel- and ticagrelor-treated patients. However, both drugs inhibited P2Y₁₂ -mediated platelet aggregation stronger, and thereby to a similar extent in patients with type 2 diabetes than in those without diabetes. There was no correlation between either P2Y₁₂ -, or PAR-1- or PAR-4-mediated platelet aggregation and levels of HbA1c or the body mass index (BMI). However, we observed patients with high residual platelet reactivity in response to PAR-1 and PAR-4 stimulation in all cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Prasugrel and ticagrelor inhibit P2Y₁₂ - and PAR-mediated platelet aggregation in individuals with diabetes to a similar extent, irrespective of HbA_1c levels and BMI.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Elderly Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

The treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in elderly patients continues to be a challenge because of the characteS.G.B.ristics of this population and the lack of data and specific recommendations. This review summarizes the current evidence about critical points of oral antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients. To this end, we discuss the peculiarities and differences reported referring to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in ACS management in elderly patients and what might be the best option considering these population characteristics. Furthermore, we analyze antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), with a particular focus on those cases that also present coronary artery disease (CAD). It is imperative to deepen our knowledge regarding the management of these challenging patients through real-world data and specifically designed geriatric studies to help resolve the questions remaining in their disease management.

Early vs. Delayed Initiation of Treatment With P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Aims

Whether early or delayed dual antiplatelet therapy initiation is better in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is unclear. We assessed the evidence for comparing the efficacy and safety of early vs. delayed P2Y12 inhibitor initiation in NSTE-ACS.

Methods

The randomized controlled trials with available comparisons between early and delayed initiation of P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor) in patients with NSTE-ACS until January 2021 were reviewed. The primary outcomes were trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, urgent coronary revascularization, and stroke. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted, ranking best treatments per outcome with p-scores.

Results

A total of nine trials with intervention arms including early and delayed initiation of clopidogrel (n = 5), prasugrel (n = 8), or ticagrelor (n = 6) involving 40,096 patients were included. Early prasugrel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.40–0.87), delayed prasugrel (HR, 0.60; 95%CI 0.43–0.84), and early ticagrelor (HR, 0.84; 95%CI, 0.74–0.96) significantly reduced MACE compared with early clopidogrel, but increased bleeding risk. Delayed prasugrel ranked as the best treatment to reduce MACE (p-score=0.80), early prasugrel to reduce all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and stroke, and delayed clopidogrel to reduce bleeding (p-score = 0.84). The risk of bias was low for all trials.

Conclusion

In patients with NSTE-ACS, delayed prasugrel initiation was the most effective strategy to reduce MACE. Although early prasugrel was the best option to reduce most secondary cardiovascular outcomes, it was associated with the highest bleeding risk. The opposite was found for delayed clopidogrel.

Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention

Antiplatelet therapy is key to reducing local thrombotic complications and systemic ischaemic events among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but it is inevitably associated with increased bleeding. The continuous refinement in stent technologies, together with the high incidence of ischaemic recurrences after PCI and the understanding of prognostic implications associated with bleeding, have led to a substantial evolution in antiplatelet treatment regimens over the past decades. Numerous investigations have been conducted to better stratify patients undergoing PCI according to their ischaemic and bleeding risks and to implement antithrombotic regimens accordingly. Evidence from these investigations have resulted in a number of antithrombotic treatment options as recommended by recent guidelines. In this State-of-the-Art review we provide the rationale, summarise the evidence, and discuss current and future directions of antiplatelet treatment regimens after PCI.

Assessment of Pretreatment With Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors and Cardiovascular and Bleeding Outcomes in Patients With Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The practice of pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) remains common; however, its association with improved cardiovascular outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between oral P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment and cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in patients with NSTEACS.

DATA SOURCES

On March 20, 2021, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials were searched from database inception.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of patients with NSTEACS randomized to either oral P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment (defined as prior to angiography) or no pretreatment (defined as following angiography, once coronary anatomy was known) among patients undergoing an invasive strategy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data on publication year, sample size, clinical characteristics, revascularization strategy, P2Y12 inhibitor type and dosage, time from pretreatment to angiography, and end point data were independently extracted by 2 authors. A random-effects model was used, including stratification by (1) P2Y12 inhibitor type, (2) revascularization strategy, and (3) access site.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Secondary end points were 30-day myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiovascular death. The primary safety end point was 30-day major bleeding (defined according to individual studies).

RESULTS

A total of 7 trials randomizing 13 226 patients to either pretreatment (6603 patients) or no pretreatment (6623 patients) were included. The mean age of patients was 64 years and 3598 (27.2%) were female individuals. Indication for P2Y12 inhibitors was non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in 7430 patients (61.7%), radial access was used in 4295 (32.6%), and 10 945 (82.8%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Pretreatment was not associated with a reduction in 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.15; I2 = 28%), 30-day MI (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72-1.12; I2 = 19%), or 30-day cardiovascular death (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.49-1.27; I2 = 0%). The risk of 30-day major bleeding was increased among patients who underwent pretreatment (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.16-1.97; I2 = 41%). The number needed to harm to bring about 1 major bleeding event with oral P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment was 63 patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with NSTEACS prior to angiography, compared with treatment once coronary anatomy is known, was associated with increased bleeding risk and no difference in cardiovascular outcomes. Routine pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with NSTEACS receiving an early invasive strategy is not supported by this study.