Antiplatelet Therapy Combinations and Thrombogenicity in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation

Prognostic Implication of Platelet Reactivity According to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Status in Patients Treated With Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Analysis of the PTRG-DES Consortium

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often exhibit reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the impact of LV dysfunction status in conjunction with platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes has not been previously investigated.

METHODS

From the multicenter PTRG-DES (Platelet function and genoType-Related long-term prognosis in DES-treated patients) consortium, the patients were classified as preserved-EF (PEF: LVEF ≥ 50%) and reduced-EF (REF: LVEF< 5 0%) group by echocardiography. Platelet reactivity was measured using VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and high platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as PRU ≥ 252. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at 5 years after PCI. Major bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3-5.

RESULTS

A total of 13,160 patients from PTRG-DES, 9,319 (79.6%) patients with the results of both PRU and LVEF were analyzed. The incidence of MACCE and major bleeding was higher in REF group as compared with PEF group (MACCEs: hazard ratio [HR] 2.17, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85-2.55; major bleeding: HR 1.78, P < 0.001, 95% CI 1.39-2.78). The highest rate of MACCEs was found in patients with REF and HPR, and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (HR 3.14 in REF(+)/HPR(+) vs. PEF(+)/HPR(-) group, P < 0.01, 95% CI 2.51-3.91). The frequency of major bleeding was not associated with the HPR in either group.

CONCLUSION

LV dysfunction was associated with an increased incidence of MACCEs and major bleeding in patients who underwent PCI. The HPR status further exhibited significant increase of MACCEs in patients with LV dysfunction in a large, real-world registry.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04734028.

Effects of Monotherapy with Clopidogrel vs. Aspirin on Vascular Function and Hemostatic Measurements in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Prospective, Crossover I-LOVE-MONO Trial

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy on vascular function and hemostatic measurement. Background: Monotherapy with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor vs. aspirin can be a useful alterative to optimize clinical efficacy and safety in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We performed a randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in stented patients receiving at least 6-month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Thirty CAD patients with moderate-to-high ischemic risk were randomly assigned to receive either 75 mg of clopidogrel or 100 mg of aspirin daily for 4 weeks, and were crossed over to the other strategy for 4 weeks. Vascular function was evaluated with reactive hyperemia-peripheral arterial tonometry (RH-PAT) and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). Hemostatic profiles were measured with VerifyNow and thromboelastography (TEG). The primary endpoint was the reactive hyperemia index (RHI) during clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Results: Clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function (RHI: 2.11 ± 0.77% vs. 1.87 ± 0.72%, p = 0.045), lower platelet reactivity (130 ± 64 vs. 214 ± 50 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU], p < 0.001) and prolonged reaction time (TEG R: 5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.037). In multivariate analysis, normal endothelial function (RHI ≥ 2.1) was significantly associated with clot kinetics (TEG angle ≤ 68 degree) and ‘PRU ≤ 132’. ‘PRU ≤ 132’ was achieved in 46.2% vs. 3.8% during clopidogrel administration vs. aspirin monotherapy (odds ratio 21.4, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 170.1, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In CAD patients, clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function, greater platelet inhibition and lower coagulation activity, suggesting pleiotropic effects of clopidogrel on endothelial function and hemostatic profiles.

Could cilostazol be beneficial in COVID-19 treatment? Thinking about phosphodiesterase-3 as a therapeutic target

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that has emerged and rapidly spread across the world. The COVID-19 severity is associated to viral pneumonia with additional extrapulmonary complications. Hyperinflammation, dysfunctional immune response and hypercoagulability state are associated to poor prognosis. Therefore, the repositioning of multi-target drugs to control the hyperinflammation represents an important challenge for the scientific community. Cilostazol, a selective phosphodiesterase type-3 inhibitor (PDE-3), is an antiplatelet and vasodilator drug, that presents a range of pleiotropic effects, such as antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and cardioprotective activities. Cilostazol also can inhibit the adenosine uptake, which enhances intracellular cAMP levels. In the lungs, elevated cAMP promotes anti-fibrotic, vasodilator, antiproliferative effects, as well as mitigating inflammatory events. Interestingly, a recent study evaluated antiplatelet FDA-approved drugs through molecular docking-based virtual screening on viral target proteins. This study revealed that cilostazol is a promising drug against COVID-19 by inhibiting both main protease (Mpro) and Spike glycoprotein, reinforcing its use as a promising therapeutic approach for COVID-19. Considering the complexity associated to COVID-19 pathophysiology and observing its main mechanisms, this article raises the hypothesis that cilostazol may act on important targets in development of the disease. This review highlights the importance of drug repurposing to address such an urgent clinical demand safely, effectively and at low cost, reinforcing the main pharmacological actions, to support the hypothesis that a multi-target drug such as cilostazol could play an important role in the treatment of COVID-19.

Prognostic value of plasma von Willebrand factor levels in major adverse cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) may offer great benefits for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Von Willebrand factor (vWF) is stored in endothelial cells and released into blood plasma upon vascular dysfunction. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of plasma vWF levels in CAD patients with MACEs.

METHODS

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis through the search in PubMed, Embase and CNKI. Data were collected from 960 patients who had MACEs after CAD and 3224 controls nested without the adverse events. The standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

The plasma vWF levels examined at 24 h and 48 h after admission were significantly higher in CAD patients with MACEs than those without. The pooled SMD among the MACEs group and the non-MACEs group was 0.55 (95% CI = 0.30-0.80, P < 0.0001) and 0.70 (95% CI = 0.27-1.13, P = 0.001), respectively. However, no significant difference was found in plasma vWF levels on admission between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Plasma vWF level in CAD patients examined at 24 h and 48 h after admission might be an independent prognostic factor for MACE.

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

Aspirin has been used for decades for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The effect of aspirin in secondary prevention is well-known but is still debatable for primary prevention. Despite the controversy, aspirin is believed to have a beneficial effect in primary prevention and has been widely used. However, whether the doubts concerning the wide use of aspirin are correct has resulted in the publication of data from several large clinical trials recently. There are several clinical guidelines from various international organizations on the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD, and they offer some conflicting recommendations. A reduction in the overall incidence of CVD with the development of modern prevention therapies has weakened the impact of aspirin in primary prevention. Large randomized clinical trials have found decreased or no difference in CVD events but a significant increase in the risk of bleeding. Taking aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD is no longer recommended, especially for patients who have a low to moderate risk. An assessment of the balance between the benefits and risks of aspirin use should be considered.