Publications by authors named "Ziad Boueri"

13 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ALPHEUS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial.

Lancet 2020 11 14;396(10264):1737-1744. Epub 2020 Nov 14.

Sorbonne Université, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS1166, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP), Paris, France. Electronic address:

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related myonecrosis is frequent and can affect the long-term prognosis of patients. To our knowledge, ticagrelor has not been evaluated in elective PCI and could reduce periprocedural ischaemic complications compared with clopidogrel, the currently recommended treatment. The aim of the ALPHEUS study was to examine if ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing high-risk elective PCI.

Methods: The ALPHEUS study, a phase 3b, randomised, open-label trial, was done at 49 hospitals in France and Czech Republic. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were eligible for the study if they had an indication for PCI and at least one high-risk characteristic. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter for 30 days) or clopidogrel (300-600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter for 30 days) by use of an interactive web response system, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was a composite of PCI-related type 4 (a or b) myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both of which were evaluated within 48 h of PCI (or at hospital discharge if earlier). The primary analysis was based on all events that occurred in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617290.

Findings: Between Jan 9, 2017, and May 28, 2020, 1910 patients were randomly assigned at 49 sites, 956 to the ticagrelor group and 954 to the clopidogrel group. 15 patients were excluded from the ticagrelor group and 12 from the clopidogrel group. At 48 h, the primary outcome was observed in 334 (35%) of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group and 341 (36%) of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·17; p=0·75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between the two groups, but minor bleeding events were more frequently observed with ticagrelor than clopidogrel at 30 days (105 [11%] of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group vs 71 [8%] of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group; OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·12-2·11; p=0·0070).

Interpretation: Ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective PCI and did not cause an increase in major bleeding, but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days. These results support the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care for elective PCI.

Funding: ACTION Study Group and AstraZeneca.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32236-4DOI Listing
November 2020

Use and outcomes of the PK Papyrus covered stent in France: SOS PK Papyrus Registry.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020 Oct 21. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

Cardiology Department, Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Objectives: To evaluate the rate of procedural success and long-term outcomes of the PK Papyrus (PKP) covered stent (CS).

Background: CS are essential in the treatment of coronary artery perforation (CAP). They have also been used to treat coronary artery aneurysms. Limited evidence is available on clinical outcomes with the PKP.

Methods: This was a multicenter, observational, retrospective, and prospective study. Consecutive patients undergoing intentional PKP implantation in 22 centers in France were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of procedural success. Secondary endpoints included rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent restenosis (ISR), and stent thrombosis (ST).

Results: Data from 130 patients were analyzed (mean age 72.5 ± 10.5 years; 71% men). The main indication for PKP was CAP, in 84 patients (65%). Delivery success was achieved in 95% and procedural success in 91%. During the in-hospital stay, 15 patients died (12%) and 7 (5%) presented with ST. Data from 127 patients were available at 19.2 ± 12.8 month follow-up. Thirty-three patients died (26%), 15 (12%) had an MI and 21 (17%) presented with TLR. TLR was due to ISR in 12 patients (9%), 10 had definite ST (8%) and 1 patient for stent under-expansion.

Conclusions: The principal indication for PKP was CAP. PKP had high rates of delivery and procedural success. At long-term follow-up, there was a high rate of TLR, mainly due to ISR and ST. These results are consistent with previously reported data in these clinical settings.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29328DOI Listing
October 2020

Immediate vs Delayed Stenting in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Rationale and Design of the International PRIMACY Bayesian Randomized Controlled Trial.

Can J Cardiol 2020 Nov 25;36(11):1805-1814. Epub 2020 Jan 25.

Hospital of Annecy, Centre Hospitalier Annecy Genevois, Annecy, France.

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is used to restore blood flow in the infarct-related coronary artery, followed by immediate stenting to prevent reocclusion. Stents implanted in thrombus-laden arteries cause distal embolization, which paradoxically impairs myocardial reperfusion and ventricular function. Whether a strategy of delayed stenting improves outcomes in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain.

Methods: The Primary Reperfusion Secondary Stenting (PRIMACY) is a Bayesian prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial in which delayed vs immediate stenting in patients with STEMI were compared for prevention of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, heart failure, or unplanned target vessel revascularization at 9 months. All participants were immediately reperfused, but those assigned to the delayed arm underwent stenting after an interval of 24 to 48 hours. This interval was bridged with antithrombin therapy to reduce thrombus burden. In the principal Bayesian hierarchical random effects analysis, data from exchangeable trials will be combined into a study prior and updated with PRIMACY into a posterior probability of efficacy.

Results: A total of 305 participants were randomized across 15 centres in France and Canada between April 2014 and September 2017. At baseline, the median age of participants was 59 years, 81% were male, and 3% had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention. Results from PRIMACY will be updated from the patient-level data of 1568 participants enrolled in the Deferred Stent Trial in STEMI (DEFER; United Kingdom), Minimalist Immediate Mechanical Intervention (MIMI; France), Danish Trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-3 (DANAMI-3; Denmark), and Impact of Immediate Stent Implantation Versus Deferred Stent Implantation on Infarct Size and Microvascular Perfusion in Patients With ST Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (INNOVATION, South Korea) trials.

Conclusions: We expect to clarify whether delayed stenting can safely reduce the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular end points compared with immediate stenting in patients with STEMI.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.01.019DOI Listing
November 2020

Blunting periprocedural myocardial necrosis: Rationale and design of the randomized ALPHEUS study.

Am Heart J 2020 07 29;225:27-37. Epub 2020 Apr 29.

Sorbonne Université, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS1166, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP), Paris, France. Electronic address:

Background: Clopidogrel associated with aspirin is the recommended treatment for patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although severe PCI-related events are rare, evidence suggests that PCI-related myocardial infarction and myocardial injury are frequent complications that can impact the clinical prognosis of the patients. Antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y receptor inhibitor such as ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural ischemic complications while maintaining a similar safety profile as compared with conventional dual antiplatelet therapy by aspirin and clopidogrel in this setting.

Methods: Assessment of Loading with the P2Y inhibitor ticagrelor or clopidogrel to Halt ischemic Events in patients Undergoing elective coronary Stenting (ALPHEUS) (NCT02617290) is an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study in patients with stable coronary artery disease who are planned for an elective PCI. In total, 1,900 patients will be randomized before a planned PCI to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or a loading dose of clopidogrel (300 or 600 mg) in addition to aspirin. Patients will then receive a dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for 30 days. The primary ischemic end point is PCI-related myocardial infarction (myocardial infarction type 4a or 4b) or major myocardial injury within 48 hours (or at hospital discharge if earlier) after elective PCI/stent. Safety will be evaluated by major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) at 48 hours (or discharge if it occurs earlier).

Conclusion: ALPHEUS is the first properly sized trial comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel in the setting of elective PCI and is especially designed to show a reduction in periprocedural events, a surrogate end point for mortality.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2020.04.017DOI Listing
July 2020

Optimal Timing of Intervention in NSTE-ACS Without Pre-Treatment: The EARLY Randomized Trial.

JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020 04;13(8):907-917

Aix-Marseille Université, Intensive Care Unit, Department of Cardiology, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France; Mediterranean Association for Research and Studies in Cardiology, Marseille, France; Centre for CardioVascular and Nutrition Research, INSERM 1263, INRA 1260, Marseille, France. Electronic address:

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare a delayed and a very early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) without pre-treatment.

Background: The optimal delay of the invasive strategy in patients with NSTE-ACS remains debated and has never been investigated in patients not pre-treated with P2Y-adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists.

Methods: A prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Altogether, 741 patients presenting with intermediate- or high-risk NSTE-ACS intended for an invasive strategy were included. The modified intention-to-treat analysis was composed of 709 patients after 32 withdrew consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the delayed invasive group (DG) (n = 363) with coronary angiography (CA) performed 12 to 72 h after randomization or the very early invasive group (EG) (n = 346) with CA within 2 h. No pre-treatment with a loading dose of a P2Y-adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist was allowed before CA. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee.

Results: Most patients had high-risk NSTE-ACS in both groups (93% in the EG vs. 92.5% in the DG). The median time between randomization and CA was 0 h (interquartile range [IQR]: 0 to 1 h) in the EG group and 18 h (IQR: 11 to 23 h) in the DG. The primary endpoint rate was significantly lower in the EG (4.4% vs. 21.3% in the DG; hazard ratio: 0.20; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.34; p < 0.001), driven by a reduction in recurrent ischemic events (19.8% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001). No difference was observed for cardiovascular death.

Conclusions: Without pre-treatment, a very early invasive strategy was associated with a significant reduction in ischemic events at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with intermediate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS. (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate and High-Risk Non ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes; NCT02750579).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.01.231DOI Listing
April 2020

Reasons for the Failure of Platelet Function Testing to Adjust Antiplatelet Therapy: Pharmacodynamic Insights From the ARCTIC Study.

Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019 11 7;12(11):e007749. Epub 2019 Nov 7.

Sorbonne University, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS 1166, Cardiology Institute, Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP) University Hospital, Paris, France (B.L., J.S., Y.Y., G.M., J.-P.C.).

Background: In the ARCTIC trial (Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting), treatment adjustment following platelet function testing failed to improve clinical outcomes. However, high-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) is considered as a predictor of poor ischemic outcome. This prespecified substudy evaluated clinical outcomes according to the residual platelet reactivity status after antiplatelet therapy adjustment.

Methods: We analyzed the 1213 patients assigned to the monitoring arm of the ARCTIC trial in whom platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y test before percutaneous coronary intervention and during the maintenance phase (at 14 days). HPR was defined as platelet reaction unit≥235U. The primary ischemic end point, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization and the safety end point of major bleeding were assessed according to the platelet reactivity status.

Results: Before percutaneous coronary intervention, 35.7% of patients displayed HPR (n=419). During the acute phase, between percutaneous coronary intervention and the 14-day platelet function testing, ischemic (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.18]; =0.58) and safety outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.22-7.59]; =0.78) were similar in HPR and non-HPR patients. During the maintenance phase, the proportion of HPR patients (n=186, 17.4%) decreased by 56%. At 1-year, there was no difference for the ischemic end point (5.9% versus 6.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.40-1.58]; =0.51) and a nonsignificant higher rate of major bleedings (2.7% versus 1.0%, hazard ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 0.96-8.41]; =0.06) in HPR versus non-HPR patients.

Conclusions: The proportion of HPR was halved after platelet function testing and treatment adjustment but without significant ischemic benefit at 1 year. HPR seems more as a modifiable risk marker than a risk factor of ischemic outcome.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007749DOI Listing
November 2019

Early versus delayed invasive strategy for intermediate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes managed without P2Y receptor inhibitor pretreatment: Design and rationale of the EARLY randomized trial.

Clin Cardiol 2018 Jan 22;41(1):5-12. Epub 2018 Jan 22.

Aix-Marseille Université, AP-HM, Unité INSERM 1076, Unité de Soins Intensifs Cardiologiques, Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Nord, Marseille, France.

According to recent literature, pretreatment with a P2Y ADP receptor antagonist before coronary angiography appears no longer suitable in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) due to an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. Optimal delay of the invasive strategy in this specific context is unknown. We hypothesize that without P2Y ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment, a very early invasive strategy may be beneficial. The EARLY trial (Early or Delayed Revascularization for Intermediate- and High-Risk Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes?) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, 2-parallel-group study that plans to enroll 740 patients. Patients are eligible if the diagnosis of intermediate- or high-risk NSTE-ACS is made and an invasive strategy intended. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. In the control group, a delayed strategy is adopted, with the coronary angiography taking place between 12 and 72 hours after randomization. In the experimental group, a very early invasive strategy is performed within 2 hours. A loading dose of a P2Y ADP receptor antagonist is given at the time of intervention in both groups. Recruitment began in September 2016 (n = 558 patients as of October 2017). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiovascular death and recurrent ischemic events at 1 month. The EARLY trial aims to demonstrate the superiority of a very early invasive strategy compared with a delayed strategy in intermediate- and high-risk NSTE-ACS patients managed without P2Y ADP receptor antagonist pretreatment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.22852DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490048PMC
January 2018

At least seven days delayed stenting using minimalist immediate mechanical intervention (MIMI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the SUPER-MIMI study.

EuroIntervention 2017 Jul;13(4):390-396

Annecy-Genevois Hospital, Annecy, France.

Aims: The aim of this study was to ascertain whether a minimalist immediate mechanical intervention (MIMI) aiming to restore an optimal Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow in the culprit artery, followed ≥7 days later by a second percutaneous coronary intervention with intentional stenting, is safe in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and large thrombotic burden.

Methods And Results: SUPER-MIMI was a prospective, observational trial conducted between January 2014 and April 2015 in 14 French centres. A total of 155 patients were enrolled. The pharmacological therapy was left to the operator's discretion. Eighty-one patients (52.3%) had glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) initiated before the end of the first procedure. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) delay between the two procedures was eight (seven to 12) days. Infarct-related artery reocclusion between the two procedures (primary endpoint) occurred in two patients (1.3%), neither of whom received GPI treatment. TIMI flow was maintained or improved between the end of the first procedure and the beginning of the second procedure in all patients. Thrombotic burden and stenosis severity diminished significantly between the two procedures. Stents were ultimately implanted in 97 patients (62.6%).

Conclusions: Deferred stenting (≥7 days) in patients with a high thrombus burden was safe on a background of GPI therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00667DOI Listing
July 2017

Platelet function monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy in elderly patients stented for an acute coronary syndrome (ANTARCTIC): an open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled superiority trial.

Lancet 2016 Oct 28;388(10055):2015-2022. Epub 2016 Aug 28.

Sorbonne Université-Paris 06, ACTION Study Group, INSERM UMRS 1166, Institut de Cardiologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (AP-HP), Paris, France. Electronic address:

Background: Elderly patients are at high risk of ischaemic and bleeding events. Platelet function monitoring offers the possibility to individualise antiplatelet therapy to improve the therapeutic risk-benefit ratio. We aimed to assess the effect of platelet function monitoring with treatment adjustment in elderly patients stented for an acute coronary syndrome.

Methods: We did this multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled superiority study at 35 centres in France. Patients aged 75 years or older who had undergone coronary stenting for acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1), via a central interactive voice-response system based on a computer-generated permuted-block randomisation schedule with randomly selected block sizes, to receive oral prasugrel 5 mg daily with dose or drug adjustment in case of inadequate response (monitoring group) or oral prasugrel 5 mg daily with no monitoring or treatment adjustment (conventional group). Randomisation was stratified by centre. Platelet function testing was done 14 days after randomisation and repeated 14 days after treatment adjustment in patients in the monitoring group. Study investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation, but allocation was concealed from an independent clinical events committee responsible for endpoint adjudication. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, urgent revascularisation, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium-defined bleeding complications (types 2, 3, or 5) at 12 months' follow-up. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01538446.

Findings: Between March 27, 2012, and May 19, 2015, we randomly assigned 877 patients to the monitoring group (n=442) or the conventional group (n=435). The primary endpoint occurred in 120 (28%) patients in the monitoring group compared with 123 (28%) patients in the conventional group (hazard ratio [HR], 1·003, 95% CI 0·78-1·29; p=0·98). Rates of bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups.

Interpretation: Platelet function monitoring with treatment adjustment did not improve the clinical outcome of elderly patients treated with coronary stenting for an acute coronary syndrome. Platelet function testing is still being used in many centres and international guidelines still recommend platelet function testing in high-risk situations. Our study does not support this practice or these recommendations.

Funding: Eli Lilly and Company, Daiichi Sankyo, Stentys, Accriva Diagnostics, Medtronic, and Fondation Coeur et Recherche.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31323-XDOI Listing
October 2016

Clinical Outcome of First- vs Second-Generation DES According to DAPT Duration: Results of ARCTIC-Generation.

Clin Cardiol 2016 Apr 16;39(4):192-200. Epub 2016 Feb 16.

Univ Paris 06 (UPMC), ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (APHP), Paris, France.

There is an apparent benefit with extension of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy vs a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation, and of Treatment Interruption vs Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC)-Generation assessed whether there is a difference of outcome between first- vs second-generation DES and if there is an interaction with DAPT duration in the ARCTIC-Interruption study. ARCTIC-Interruption randomly allocated 1259 patients 1 year after stent implantation to a strategy of interruption of DAPT (n = 624), in which aspirin antiplatelet treatment only was maintained, or DAPT continuation (n = 635) for 6 to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization. A total of 520 and 722 patients received a first- and a second-generation DES, respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months (interquartile range, 15-18 months) after randomization, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 (6.2%) and 19 (2.6%) patients with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-4.07, P = 0.004). This was observed irrespective of the strategy of interruption or continuation of DAPT and timing of study recruitment. Major bleeding events occurred in 4 (0.8%) and 3 patients (0.4%) with first- and second-generation DES, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-8.02, P = 0.44). Results did not change after multiple adjustments for potential confounding variables. ARCTIC-Generation showed worse clinical outcome with first- vs second-generation DES, a difference that appeared to persist even with prolonged DAPT.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.22512DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6490771PMC
April 2016

Platelet function monitoring in elderly patients on prasugrel after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome: design of the randomized antarctic study.

Am Heart J 2014 Nov 7;168(5):674-81. Epub 2014 Aug 7.

Institut de Cardiologie, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. Electronic address:

Background: Elderly patients are at high risk for both ischemic and bleeding events. Platelet monitoring offers the opportunity to individualized antiplatelet therapy to optimize the therapeutic risk/benefit ratio.

Study Design: The ANTARCTIC study is designed to demonstrate the superiority of a strategy of platelet function monitoring with dose and drug adjustment in patients initially on prasugrel 5 mg as compared with a more conventional strategy using prasugrel 5 mg without monitoring and without adjustment (Conventional Treatment Arm) to reduce the primary end point evaluated 1 year after stent percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). ANTARCTIC is a multicenter, prospective, open-label study with 2 parallel arms. A total of 852 elderly patients (≥ 75 years) undergoing stent percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS are to be enrolled. The primary end point is the time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, urgent revascularization, and bleeding complications (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition 2, 3, or 5). Platelet function analyses will be performed 14 days after randomization and repeated 14 days later in patients who require a change in treatment.

Conclusion: ANTARCTIC is a nationwide, prospective, open-label study testing a strategy of platelet function monitoring with dose and drug adjustment to reduce ischemic and bleeding complications in elderly ACS patients undergoing coronary stenting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2014.07.026DOI Listing
November 2014

High on-treatment platelet reactivity as a risk factor for secondary prevention after coronary stent revascularization: A landmark analysis of the ARCTIC study.

Circulation 2014 May 9;129(21):2136-43. Epub 2014 Apr 9.

From the ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie (AP-HP), INSERM UMRS 1166, Université Paris 6, Paris, France (G.M., J.S., O.B., P.S., S.A.O., M.K., J.-P.C.); Hôpital Louis Pasteur, Le Coudray, France (G.R.); Hôpital de la Timone, Marseille, France (J.-L.B., T.C.); CH de Bastia, Bastia, France (Z.B.); CHU Carémeau, Nîmes, France (G.C.); CH de la Région Annecienne, Annecy, France (L.B.); Hôpital Cardiologique, Lille, France (E.V.B.); CH de Lagny, Marne-la-Vallée, France (S.E.); Clinique Sainte-Clothilde, La Réunion, France (C.P.); Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France (P.H.); CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France (P.M.); Hôpital de Rangueil, Toulouse, France (D.C.); Unite de Recherche Clinique, Hôpital Lariboisière, ACTION Study Group, Paris, France (H.R., E.V.); Hôpital Bichat, Paris, France (P.A.); HIA du Val-du-Grâce, Paris, France (J.M.); Hôpital Bichat, ACTION Study Group, Paris, France (J.A.); Hôpital Trousseau, Chambray-lès-Tours, ACTION Study Group, Paris, France (C.S.-E.); and CHU Côte de Nacre, Caen, ACTION Study Group, Caen, France (F.B.).

Background: Individualizing antiplatelet therapy after platelet function testing did not improve outcome after coronary stenting in the Assessment by a Double Randomization of a Conventional Antiplatelet Strategy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interruption Versus Continuation One Year After Stenting (ARCTIC) study. Whether results are different during the phase of secondary prevention starting after hospital discharge, when periprocedural events have been excluded, is unknown.

Methods And Results: In ARCTIC, 2440 patients were randomized before coronary stenting to a strategy of platelet function monitoring (VerifyNow P2Y12/aspirin point-of-care assay) with drug adjustment in suboptimal responders to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and without drug or dose changes. We performed a landmark analysis starting at the time of hospital discharge evaluating the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization through 1 year. After discharge, the primary end point occurred in 8.6% of patients in the monitoring arm and 7.9% in the conventional arm (hazard ratio, 1.105; 95% confidence interval, 0.835-1.461; P=0.48). Stent thrombosis or urgent revascularization occurred in 4.4% and 4.5% in the monitoring and conventional arms, respectively (P=0.99). There was no difference for any of the other ischemic end points. Major bleeding event rates were 1.8% in the monitoring arm and 2.8% in the conventional arm (P=0.11), whereas major or minor bleeding event rates were 2.3% and 3.4%, respectively (P=0.10).

Conclusions: Detection of platelet hyper-reactivity by platelet function testing in patients undergoing coronary stenting with further therapeutic adjustment does not reduce ischemic recurrences after intervention. On-treatment platelet hyperreactivity cannot be considered as a risk factor requiring intervention for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary revascularization.

Clinical Trial Registration Url: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00827411.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.007524DOI Listing
May 2014

Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting.

N Engl J Med 2012 Nov 4;367(22):2100-9. Epub 2012 Nov 4.

Institut de Cardiologie Hôpital Pitié–Salpêtrière and Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.

Background: Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy.

Methods: We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later.

Results: In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions: This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209979DOI Listing
November 2012