Consensus Document of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO), Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Italian Association of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) and Italian Society of Cardiac Surgery (SICCH): clinical approach to pharmacologic pre-treatment for patients undergoing myocardial revascularization procedures

The wide availability of effective drugs in reducing cardiovascular events together with the use of myocardial revascularization has greatly improved the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease. The combination of antithrombotic drugs to be administered before the knowledge of the coronary anatomy and before the consequent therapeutic strategies, can allow to anticipate optimal treatment, but can also expose the patients at risk of bleeding that, especially in acute coronary syndromes, can significantly weigh on their prognosis, even more than the expected theoretical benefit. In non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes patients in particular, we propose a 'selective pre-treatment' with P2Y12 inhibitors, based on the ischaemic risk, on the bleeding risk and on the time scheduled for the execution of coronary angiography. Much of the problems concerning this issue would be resolved by an early access to coronary angiography, particularly for patients at higher ischaemic and bleeding risk.

Effectiveness of Pretreatment With Dual Oral Antiplatelet Therapy

Several observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses suggested that pretreatment with clopidogrel in addition to aspirin could reduce the rate of ischemic events, especially in the setting of acute coronary syndromes. Newer P2Y12 inhibitors like prasugrel and ticagrelor, which provide faster and stronger platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel, would enhance the benefits of pretreatment. However, 2 recent randomized trials, A Comparison of Prasugrel at PCI or Time of Diagnosis of Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and the Administration of Ticagrelor in the Cath Lab or in the Ambulance for New ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction to Open the Coronary Artery studies, aimed at assessing the effects of the timing of administration of novel P2Y12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes, failed to meet their primary end points. In this report, we review clinical data on pretreatment with dual oral antiplatelet therapy and comment on some criticisms raised from recent trials.

Frequency of the use of low- versus high-dose aspirin in dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (from the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy study)

In randomized trials, low-dose (LD) and high-dose (HD) aspirin (ASA) are equally effective in reducing ischemic complications, but HD ASA is associated with an increased risk of bleeding in the setting of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). ASA dose after PCI varies across countries, but little is known about variation within the United States (US) and whether this variation can be explained by clinical characteristics of patients. We used enrollment data from the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study, a randomized trial designed to compare 12 versus 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, to quantify the variation in ASA dosing after PCI in the US subjects and assess the extent to which dose variability was attributable to patient characteristics. Of the 23,336 patients enrolled in the US, 28.0% were prescribed LD ASA at discharge after PCI. Patient characteristics explained 1.6% of total variance in ASA dose, whereas the study site accounted for 45.9% of the unexplained variability. The median odds ratio comparing sites was 5.05 (95% confidence interval 4.29 to 5.85), which was greater than any individual predictor of ASA dose. In conclusion, LD ASA after PCI in the US was used in a minority of patients, and heterogeneity in its selection was mainly influenced by the site of enrollment rather than patient characteristics. As HD ASA may be associated with adverse events in the setting of dual antiplatelet therapy, reducing local practice variation in the dose of ASA may be a target for quality improvement.