Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage

BACKGROUND

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A-E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24-hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty-day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.

Improved outcomes in patients with severely depressed LVEF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary practices

BACKGROUND

Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II randomized controlled trial) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days.

RESULTS

Compared with PROTECT II (N = 216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, P = .045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; P < .001) and prior myocardial infarction (40.7% vs 69.3%; P < .001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, P < .001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; P < .001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; P < .001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; P < .001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; P < .001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with severely depressed LVEF.

Pandemic-Associated Delays in Myocardial Infarction Presentation in Predominantly Rural Counties With Low COVID-19 Prevalence

Fewer ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) presentations and increased delays in care occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic in urban areas. Whether these associations occurred in a more rural population has not been previously reported. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on time-to-presentation for STEMI in rural locations. Patients presenting to a large STEMI network spanning 27 facilities and 13 predominantly rural counties between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2020 were included. Presentation delays, defined as time from symptom onset to arrival at the first medical facility, classified as ≥12 and ≥24 hours from symptom onset were compared among patients in the pre–COVID-19 and the early COVID-19 eras. To account for patient-level differences, 2:1 propensity score matching was performed using binary logistic regression. Among 1,286 patients with STEMI, 1,245 patients presented in the pre–COVID-19 era and 41 presented during the early COVID-19 era. Presentation delays ≥12 hours (19.5% vs 4.0%) and ≥24 hours (14.6% and 0.2%) were more common in COVID-19 than pre–COVID-19 cohorts (p <0.001 for both), despite a low COVID-19 prevalence. Similar results were seen in propensity-matched comparisons (≥12 hours: 19.5% vs 2.4%, p = 0.002; ≥24 hours 14.6% vs 0.0%, p = 0.001). In a predominantly rural STEMI population, delays in seeking medical care after symptom onset were markedly more frequent during the COVID-19 era, despite low COVID-19 prevalence. Considering delays in reperfusion have multiple adverse downstream consequences, these findings may have important implications in rural communities during future pandemic resurgences.

Ventricular Septal Rupture in 2 Patients Presenting Late after Myocardial Infarction during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) following myocardial infarction is rare in the reperfusion era. The decrease in patients presenting with myocardial infarction during the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic could result in more frequent VSR. This report describes two patients with VSR presenting late after myocardial infarction and treated at a single institution. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.)

Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With a History of Cerebrovascular Disease: Insights From the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

BACKGROUND

Because of shared risk factors between coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, patients with a history of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke are at greater risk of developing coronary artery disease, which may require percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there remains a paucity of research examining outcomes after PCI in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent PCI between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2016, at 47 Michigan hospitals and identified those with a history of TIA/stroke. We used propensity score matching to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics and compared in-hospital outcomes between patients with and without a history of TIA/stroke. We compared rates of 90-day readmission and long-term mortality in a subset of patients. Among 98 730 patients who underwent PCI, 10 915 had a history of TIA/stroke. After matching (n=10 618 per group), a history of TIA/stroke was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-2.96; P<0.001). There were no differences in the risks of other in-hospital outcomes. In a subset of patients with postdischarge data, a history of TIA/stroke was associated with increased risks of 90-day readmission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.38; P<0.001) and long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.43; P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of TIA/stroke was common in patients who underwent PCI and was associated with increased risks of in-hospital stroke, 90-day readmission, and long-term mortality. Given the devastating consequences of post-PCI stroke, patients with a history of TIA/stroke should be counseled on this increased risk before undergoing PCI.

Ninety-Day Readmission and Long-Term Mortality in Medicare Patients (≥65 Years) Treated With Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium)

Ticagrelor and prasugrel were found to be superior to clopidogrel for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, the comparative effectiveness of these 2 drugs remains unknown. We compared postdischarge outcomes among older patients treated with ticagrelor versus prasugrel after PCI for ACS. We linked clinical data from PCIs performed in older patients (age ≥65) for ACS at 47 Michigan hospitals to Medicare fee-for-service claims from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, to ascertain rates of 90-day readmission and long-term mortality. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the nonrandom use of ticagrelor and prasugrel at discharge. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare rates of 90-day readmission and long-term mortality, respectively. Patients discharged on ticagrelor (n = 1,243) were more frequently older, female, had a history of cerebrovascular disease, and presented with ST- or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared with prasugrel (n = 1,014). After matching (n = 756 per group), there were no significant differences in the rates of 90-day readmission (16.7% ticagrelor vs 14.6% prasugrel; adjusted odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.55, p = 0.35) or 1-year mortality (5.4% ticagrelor vs 3.7% prasugrel; hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 2.2, p = 0.31). In conclusion, we found no significant differences in the rates of 90-day readmission or long-term mortality between older patients treated with ticagrelor and patients treated with prasugrel after PCI for ACS. In the absence of randomized data to the contrary, these 2 treatments appear similarly effective.

Radiation Exposure Among Scrub Technologists and Nurse Circulators During Cardiac Catheterization: The Impact of Accessory Lead Shields

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to determine if the use of an accessory lead shield is associated with a reduction in radiation exposure among staff members during cardiac catheterization.

BACKGROUND

Accessory lead shields that protect physicians from scatter radiation are standard in many catheterization laboratories, yet similar shielding for staff members is not commonplace.

METHODS

Real-time radiation exposure data were prospectively collected among nurses and technologists during 764 consecutive catheterizations. The study had 2 phases: in phase I (n = 401), standard radiation protection measures were used, and in phase II (n = 363), standard radiation protection measures were combined with an accessory lead shield placed between the staff member and patient. Radiation exposure was reported as the effective dose normalized to dose-area product (E_DAP).

RESULTS

Use of an accessory lead shield in phase II was associated with a 62.5% lower E_DAP per case among technologists (phase I: 2.4 [4.3] μSv/[mGy × cm²] × 10^-5; phase II: 0.9 [2.8] μSv/[mGy × cm²] × 10^-5; p < 0.001) and a 63.6% lower E_DAP per case among nurses (phase I: 1.1 [3.1] μSv/[mGy × cm²] × 10^-5; phase II: 0.4 [1.8] μSv/[mGy × cm²] × 10^-5; p < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, accessory shielding remained independently associated with a lower E_DAP among both technologists (34.2% reduction; 95% confidence interval: 20.1% to 45.8%; p < 0.001) and nurses (36.4% reduction; 95% confidence interval: 19.7% to 49.6%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively simple approach of using accessory lead shields to protect staff members during cardiac catheterization was associated with a nearly two-thirds reduction in radiation exposure among nurses and technologists.

Confirmation of the Intracoronary Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Threshold of Lipid-Rich Plaques That Underlie ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

OBJECTIVE

In a previous exploratory analysis, intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) found the majority of culprit lesions in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to contain a maximum lipid core burden index in 4 mm (maxLCBI4mm) of >400. This initial study was limited by a small sample size, enrollment at a single center, and post hoc selection of the maxLCBI4mm ≥400 threshold. This study was designed a priori to substantiate the ability of NIRS to discriminate STEMI culprit from nonculprit segments and to confirm the performance of the maxLCBI4mm ≥400 threshold.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

At 2 centers in the United States and Sweden, 75 STEMI patients underwent intracoronary NIRS imaging after establishing thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 flow, but before stenting. Blinded core laboratory analysis defined the culprit segment as the 10-mm segment distal to the proximal angiographic culprit margin. The remaining vessel was divided into contiguous 10-mm nonculprit segments. The maxLCBI4mm of culprit segments (median [interquartile range]: 543 [273-756]) was 4.4-fold greater than nonculprit segments (median [interquartile range]: 123 [0-307]; P<0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that maxLCBI4mm differentiated culprit from nonculprit segments with high accuracy (c-statistic=0.83; P<0.001). A threshold maxLCBI4mm ≥400 identified STEMI culprit segments with a sensitivity of 64% and specificity of 85%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study substantiates the ability of NIRS to accurately differentiate STEMI culprit from nonculprit segments and confirms that a threshold maxLCBI4mm ≥400 is detected by NIRS in the majority of STEMI culprits.

Large lipid-rich coronary plaques detected by near-infrared spectroscopy at non-stented sites in the target artery identify patients likely to experience future major adverse cardiovascular events

AIMS

A recent study demonstrated that intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) findings in non-target vessels are associated with major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). It is unknown whether NIRS findings at non-stented sites in target vessels are similarly associated with future MACCE. This study evaluated the association between large lipid-rich plaques (LRP) detected by NIRS at non-stented sites in a target artery and subsequent MACCE.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study evaluated 121 consecutive registry patients undergoing NIRS imaging in a target artery. After excluding stented segments, target arteries were evaluated for a large LRP, defined as a maximum lipid core burden index in 4 mm (maxLCBI4 mm) ≥400. Excluding events in stented segments, Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate for an association between a maxLCBI4 mm ≥400 and future MACCE, defined as all-cause mortality, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, and cerebrovascular events. NIRS detected a maxLCBI4 mm ≥400 in a non-stented segment of the target artery in 17.4% of patients. The only baseline clinical variable marginally associated with MACCE was ejection fraction (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-1.00, P = 0.054). A maxLCBI4 mm ≥400 in a non-stented segment at baseline was significantly associated with MACCE during follow-up (HR 10.2, 95% CI 3.4-30.6, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Detection of large LRP by NIRS at non-stented sites in a target artery was associated with an increased risk of future MACCE. These findings support ongoing prospective studies to further evaluate the ability of NIRS to identify vulnerable patients.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: Real-world versus clinical trial experience

BACKGROUND

High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices offers a treatment option for patients with severe symptoms, complex and extensive coronary artery disease, and multiple comorbidities. The extrapolation from clinical trial to real-world practice has inherent uncertainties. We compared the characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of high-risk PCI supported by a microaxial pump (Impella 2.5) in a multicenter registry versus the randomized PROTECT II trial (NCT00562016).

METHODS

The USpella registry is an observational multicenter voluntary registry of Impella technology. A total of 637 patients treated between June 2007 and September 2013 were included. Of them, 339 patients would have met enrollment criteria for the PROTECT II trial. These were compared with 216 patients treated in the Impella arm of PROTECT II.

RESULTS

Compared to the clinical trial, registry patients were older (70 ± 11.5 vs 67.5 ± 11.0 years); more likely to have chronic kidney disease (30% vs 22.7%), prior myocardial infarction (69.3% vs 56.5%), or prior bypass surgery (39.4% vs. 30.2%); and had similar prevalence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and prior stroke. Registry patients had more extensive coronary artery disease (2.2 vs 1.8 diseased vessels) and had a similar Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality. At hospital discharge, registry patients experienced a similar reduction in New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms compared to trial patients. Registry patients had a trend toward lower in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 4.6, P = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

USpella provides a real-world and contemporary estimation of the type of procedures and outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing PCI supported by Impella 2.5. Despite the higher risk of registry patients, clinical outcomes appeared to be favorable and consistent compared with the randomized trial.

The comparative efficacy of bivalirudin is markedly attenuated by use of radial access: insights from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

AIM

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the relative impact of bivalirudin on bleeding outcomes associated with trans-radial interventions (TRI) in real world practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between January 2010 and March 2014 at the 47 hospitals participating in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) were utilized. Propensity matching was used within cohorts defined by access site. The impact of bivalirudin use on in-hospital outcomes was evaluated with Fisher's exact tests. Among patients undergoing trans-femoral interventions (TFI), use of bivalirudin was associated with a reduction in bleeding compared with both glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI; 1.67 vs. 3.46%, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.79%, odds ratio, OR, 0.47, confidence interval, CI, 0.41-0.54, number needed to treat, NNT 56, P < 0.001) and heparin (1.26 vs. 1.76%, ARR 0.5%, OR 0.71, CI 0.61-0.82, NNT 197, P < 0.001). Among patients undergoing TRI, there was a more modest absolute reduction in bleeding with bivalirudin compared with GPI (0.79 vs. 1.41%, ARR 0.62%, OR 0.56, CI 0.34-0.90, NNT 161, P = 0.016) and no difference in bleeding compared with heparin (0.46 vs. 0.46%, OR 1, CI 0.54-1.84, P = 1).

CONCLUSION

Bivalirudin is markedly efficacious in reducing bleeding in patients undergoing TFI. The reduction in bleeding associated with bivalirudin use is minimal to absent in patients undergoing TRI. Given its lower cost and comparable outcomes, heparin should be the preferred anticoagulation strategy in those undergoing radial PCI.

Contemporary Use of Ticagrelor in Interventional Practice (from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium)

Ticagrelor has greater antiplatelet activity than clopidogrel and is approved for use in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are limited data on use of ticagrelor in real-world practice. We assessed ticagrelor use in 64,600 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention from January 2012 to March 2014 at 47 Michigan hospitals in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Preprocedural risk of major adverse events was estimated with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium risk prediction models. The proportion of patients receiving clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor was 72% (n = 46,864), 20% (n = 12,596), and 8% (n = 5,140), respectively, using ticagrelor increasing over time. Ticagrelor was used at 45 hospitals, ranging from 0.5% to 64.9% of discharges. Patients receiving ticagrelor were older (63.6 vs 59.4), more often women (32.9% vs 26.7%), and were more likely to present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (24.4% vs 18.8%), cardiogenic shock within 24 hours (1.3% vs 0.9%), and anginal class IV (47.8% vs 43.0%) (p <0.05). Compared with prasugrel, ticagrelor was prescribed in patients with a higher predicted risk of percutaneous coronary intervention complications: contrast nephropathy (2.5% vs 1.6%), transfusion (2.2% vs 1.4%), and death (1.2% vs 0.7%) (p <0.001); >10% of patients were given prasugrel or ticagrelor for a non-ACS indication. Ticagrelor is prescribed to a higher risk population, and 1 in 10 patients prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel did not have ACS.

The epidemiology and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention before high-risk noncardiac surgery in contemporary practice: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) Registry

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is sometimes performed with the intent to lower cardiovascular risk before high‐risk noncardiac surgery (HRNCS). There are limited data on the frequency and outcome of PCIs performed in this setting.

Methods and Results

We assessed the frequency, characteristics, and in‐hospital outcomes of patients undergoing PCI as part of the preoperative workup for HRNCS among all 61 145 elective PCIs performed between 2002 and 2009 at 14 hospitals in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Propensity matching was performed to compare outcomes of patients undergoing PCI before HRNCS with all other elective PCI patients. The frequency of PCI before HRNCS was low (4.2%). Patients undergoing PCI before HRNCS were older (67.3 versus 64.9 years, P<0.0001) and had a greater burden of comorbidity. Patients undergoing PCI before HRNCS had an increase in unadjusted major adverse cardiovascular events, postprocedure transfusion, contrast‐induced nephropathy, nephropathy requiring dialysis, and same‐admission coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but there was no difference in mortality (0.27% versus 0.14%, P=0.11). However, in propensity score–matched samples, there was a significant difference only in nephropathy requiring dialysis.

Conclusions

The incidence of PCI performed in preparation for high‐risk noncardiac surgery is low, and these procedures are currently being performed on a highly selected high‐risk patient population.

Risk of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary interventions using radial versus femoral vascular access: insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

BACKGROUND

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI [TRI]) does not involve catheter manipulation in the descending aorta, whereas transfemoral PCI (TFI) does. Therefore, the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) after PCI might be influenced by vascular access site. We compared risks of AKI and nephropathy requiring dialysis (NRD) among patients treated with TRI and TFI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients across 47 hospitals in Michigan. Primary end point was AKI (serum creatinine increase ≥0.5 mg/dL). Secondary end points were NRD and postprocedural bleeding. Odds ratios (OR) for study end points were calculated for the entire and propensity-matched population, reported as crude, and values adjusted for preprocedural calculated AKI risk. Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 82 225 PCI procedures were performed, of which 8915 were TRI. After adjustment, TRI was associated with a reduction in AKI (OR, 0.76, 95% confidence intervals [0.62-0.92]) and bleeding with a trend toward lower NRD risk. The propensity-matched population consisted of 8857 procedures per group. In this population, TRI was associated with lower adjusted odds of AKI (OR, 0.74; 95% confidence intervals [0.58-0.96]), and bleeding (OR, 0.47; 95% confidence intervals [0.36-0.63]), but no difference in NRD was observed. Although postprocedural bleeding was independently associated with AKI (OR, 2.86; 95% confidence intervals [1.75-4.66]) in the propensity-matched population, the lower odds of AKI was not mediated by a reduction in bleeding with TRI. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the observed association between access site and AKI could potentially be explained by a moderately strong unknown confounder.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of AKI was significantly lower after TRI compared with TFI. This finding needs to be evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Contemporary Use of Prasugrel in Clinical Practice

Background—

Prasugrel is a recently approved thienopyridine for use in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no data on contemporary use of prasugrel in routine clinical practice.

Methods and Results—

We assessed the patterns of prasugrel use among 55 821 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were discharged alive from January 2010 to December 2011 at 44 hospitals participating in the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium. Potential inappropriate therapy was defined as use in patients who had a history of cerebrovascular disease, weighed <60 kg, or were aged ≥75 years old. Clopidogrel was prescribed to 83% (n=46 574) and 17% (n=9247) of patients received prasugrel on hospital discharge. A steady, linear increase in prasugrel use was seen during the study period, with discharge prescription increasing from 8.4% in quarter 1 of 2010 to 22.3% in quarter 4 of 2011. Of the total cohort, 69.1% of patients presented with acute coronary syndrome, and in this group, 17.2% received prasugrel. Among patients prescribed prasugrel, 28.3% (n=2614) received the medication for indications outside of acute coronary syndromes. One or more known contraindications to the drug were present in 6% to 10% of patients discharged on this agent.

Conclusions—

There has been a steady increase in the use of prasugrel with the drug being used in ≈22% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by study end. Prasugrel use in patients with known contraindications is not uncommon and may be a suitable target for focused quality improvement efforts.