Dataset Information

Factors Associated With Initial Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel Selection for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study.

ABSTRACT: Few studies have examined how antiplatelet therapies are selected during the routine care of acute myocardial infarction patients, particularly relative to the patient's estimated mortality and bleeding risks.We examined patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals in the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study from April 2010 to October 2012. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with prasugrel selection. Prasugrel use rates and associated 1-year risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding outcomes were also examined in relation to predicted mortality and bleeding using the validated Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes (ACTION) risk prediction scores. Among 11 969 patients, 3123 (26%) received prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention. The strongest factors associated with prasugrel use included cardiogenic shock (odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.25-2.26), drug-eluting stent use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.31-1.62), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presentation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35). Older age (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.0.53-0.61), dialysis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.96), prior history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.73), and interhospital transfer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.55) were associated with lowest prasugrel selection. Prasugrel was used less often than clopidogrel in patients at higher predicted bleeding risk (21.9% versus 29.7%, P<0.001). Yet paradoxically, prasugrel was also less likely than clopidogrel to be used in patients with higher predicted mortality risk (21.1% versus 30.2%, P<0.001). Adjusted bleeding and outcomes events were similar among those receiving prasugrel and clopidogrel in the 4 subgroups of patients based on bleeding risk and ischemic benefits.In community practice, prasugrel use may be driven more by bleeding risk rather than ischemic benefit. This may result in underutilization of higher potency ADP receptor inhibitor among patients more likely to derive ischemic benefit.

SUBMITTER: Vora AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5079042 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors Associated With Initial Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel Selection for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study.

Vora Amit N AN Peterson Eric D ED McCoy Lisa A LA Effron Mark B MB Anstrom Kevin J KJ Faries Douglas E DE Zettler Marjorie E ME Fonarow Gregg C GC Baker Brian A BA Stone Gregg W GW Wang Tracy Y TY

Journal of the American Heart Association 20160923 9

<h4>Background</h4>Few studies have examined how antiplatelet therapies are selected during the routine care of acute myocardial infarction patients, particularly relative to the patient's estimated mortality and bleeding risks.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We examined patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals in the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study from April 2010 to October 2012. We developed a multivariable logistic ...[more]

PMID: 27663414

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPotent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear.AimsWe sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI.ConclusionsTicagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

Project description:Background Hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the United States is both common and expensive, but those features alone provide little insight into cost-saving opportunities. Methods and Results To understand the cost drivers during hospitalization for acute MI and in the following year, we prospectively studied 11 969 patients with acute MI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals (2010-2013) from the TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry. Baseline costs were collected in a random subset (n=4619 patients, 54% ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI]), while follow-up costs out to 1 year were collected for all patients. The mean index length of stay was 3.1 days (for both STEMI and non-STEMI) and mean intensive care unit length of stay was 1.2 days (1.4 days for STEMI and 1.0 days for non-STEMI). Index hospital costs averaged $18 931 ($19 327 for STEMI, $18 465 for non-STEMI), with 45% catheterization laboratory-related and 20% attributable to postprocedure hospital stay. Patient factors, including severity of illness and extent of coronary disease, and hospital characteristics, including for profit status and geographic region, identified significant variations in cost. Intensive care was used for 53% of non-STEMI and increased costs by $3282. Postdischarge 1-year costs averaged $8037, and 48% of patients were rehospitalized (half within 2 months and 57% with a cardiovascular diagnosis). Conclusions While much of the cost of patients with acute MI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is probably not modifiable by the care team, cost reductions are still possible through quality-preserving practice efficiencies, such as need-based use rather than routine use of intensive care unit for patients with stable non-STEMI. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00097591.

Project description:Among patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) who have multivessel disease, it is unclear if multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves clinical and quality-of-life outcomes compared with culprit-only intervention. We sought to compare clinical and quality-of-life outcomes between multivessel and culprit-only PCI.Among 6061 patients with acute MI who have multivessel disease in the TRANSLATE-ACS (Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome) study, we used inverse probability-weighted propensity adjustment to study the associations between multivessel and culprit-only intervention during the index PCI and major adverse cardiovascular events, unplanned all-cause readmission, and angina frequency at 6 weeks and 1 year. Multivessel PCI was performed in 1208 (20%) of patients with MI who had multivessel disease. Relative to the culprit-only intervention, patients receiving multivessel PCI were similarly aged and more likely to be seen with non-ST-segment elevation MI or cardiogenic shock. At 6 weeks, the initial multivessel PCI strategy was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events and unplanned readmission risks, whereas angina frequency was not significantly different between multivessel and culprit-only PCI. At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular event risk was persistently lower in the multivessel PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.99), whereas long-term readmission risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.04) and angina frequency were similar between groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.24). Similar associations were seen when patients with ST-segment elevation MI and non-ST-segment elevation MI were examined separately.Among patients with acute MI who have multivessel disease, multivessel PCI was associated with lower risk of all-cause readmission at 6 weeks and lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 6 weeks and 1 year. However, similar short- and long-term angina frequencies were noted.

Project description:BackgroundNonadherence to prescribed evidence-based medications after acute myocardial infarction (MI) can contribute to worse outcomes and higher costs. We sought to better understand the modifiable factors contributing to early nonadherence of evidence-based medications after acute MI.Methods and resultsWe assessed 7425 acute MI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 216 US hospitals participating in TReatment with ADP receptor iNhibitorS: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events after Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) between April 2010 and May 2012. Using the validated Morisky instrument to assess cardiovascular medication adherence at 6 weeks post MI, we stratified patients into self-reported high (score, 8), moderate (score, 6-7), and low (score, <6) adherence groups. Moderate and low adherence was reported in 25% and 4% of patients, respectively. One third of low adherence patients described missing doses of antiplatelet therapy at least twice a week after percutaneous coronary intervention. Signs of depression and patient-reported financial hardship because of medication expenses were independently associated with a higher likelihood of medication nonadherence. Patients were more likely to be adherent at 6 weeks if they had follow-up appointments made before discharge and had a provider explain potential side effects of their medications. Lower medication adherence may be associated with a higher risk of 3-month death/readmission (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.87) although this did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionsEven early after MI, a substantial proportion of patients report suboptimal adherence to prescribed medications. Tailored patient education and pre discharge planning may represent actionable opportunities to optimize patient adherence and clinical outcomes.Clinical trial registrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503.

Project description:ImportanceDe-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. However, whether such benefits are similarly observed in those receiving complex procedures is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate whether the benefits of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy are maintained in the complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial, a randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter trial performed at 35 hospitals in South Korea. Study participants included patients with ACS who were receiving PCI. Data were collected from September 30, 2014, to December 18, 2015, and analyzed from September 17, 2020, to June 15, 2021.Interventions and exposuresPatients were randomized to a prasugrel dose de-escalation (5 mg daily) at 1 month post-PCI group or a conventional (10 mg daily) group. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 or more stents implanted, 3 or more lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, total stent length 60 mm or larger, left main PCI, or heavy calcification.Main outcomes and measuresThe main analysis end points were MACE (major adverse cardiac event, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year for ischemic outcomes, and BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) class 2 or higher bleeding events at 1 year for bleeding outcomes.ResultsOf 2271 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [9.0] years; 2024 [89%] male patients) for whom full procedural data were available, 705 patients received complex PCI, and 1566 patients received noncomplex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher rates of ischemic outcomes but not with bleeding outcomes. Prasugrel dose de-escalation did not increase the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.47-1.66; P = .70 in complex PCI; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45-1.46; P = .48 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .84) but decreased BARC class 2 or higher bleeding events (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .002 in complex PCI; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00; P = .05 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .08), albeit with wide 95% CIs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this post hoc analysis of patients with ACS, prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic outcomes but may reduce the risk of minor bleeding events at 1 year, irrespective of PCI complexity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02193971.

Dataset Information

Publications

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets