Storey, Robert F.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Abstract Patients with severe infections and a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy, i.e. antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant drugs, or their combinations, require integrated clinical counselling among coagulation, infectious disease, and cardiology specialists, due to sepsis-induced coagulopathy that frequently occurs. Bacterial and viral pathogens constitute an increasing threat to global public health, especially for patients with ongoing antithrombotic treatment who have a high risk of thrombotic recurrences and high susceptibility to severe infections with increased morbidity and mortality. Similarly, sepsis survivors are at increased risk for major vascular events. Coagulopathy, which often complicates severe infections, is associated with a high mortality and obligates clinicians to adjust antithrombotic drug type and dosing to avoid bleeding while preventing thrombotic complications. This clinical consensus statement reviews the best available evidence to provide expert opinion and statements on the management of patients hospitalized for severe bacterial or viral infections with a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy (single or combined), in whom sepsis-induced coagulopathy is often observed. Balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients and preventing infections with vaccines, if available, are crucial to prevent events or improve outcomes and prognosis.

Abstract The formation of a thrombus in an epicardial artery may result in an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite major advances in acute treatment using network approaches to allocate patients to timely reperfusion and optimal antithrombotic treatment, patients remain at high risk for thrombotic complications. Ongoing activation of the coagulation system as well as thrombin-mediated platelet activation may both play a crucial role in this context. Whether measurement of circulating biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis could be useful for risk stratification in secondary prevention is currently not fully understood. In addition, measurement of such biomarkers could be helpful to identify thrombus formation as the leading mechanism for AMI. The introduction of biomarkers of myocardial injury such as high-sensitivity cardiac troponins made rule-out of AMI even more precise. However, elevated markers of myocardial injury cannot provide proof of a type 1 AMI, let alone thrombus formation. The combined measurement of markers of myocardial injury with biomarkers reflecting ongoing thrombus formation might be helpful for the fast and correct diagnosis of an atherothrombotic type 1 AMI. This position paper gives an overview of the current knowledge and possible role of biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis for the diagnosis of AMI, risk stratification, and individualized treatment strategies in patients with AMI.

AbstractBackgroundGuidelines suggest that “upstream” P2Y12 receptor antagonists should be considered in patients with non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE‐ACS).HypothesisEarly use of ticagrelor in patients managed with an invasive strategy would be more effective than clopidogrel because of its more rapid onset of action and greater potency.MethodsIn the PLATO trial, 6792 NSTE‐ACS patients were randomized to ticagrelor or clopidogrel (started prior to angiography) and underwent angiography within 72 hours of randomization. We compared efficacy and safety outcomes of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel as a function of “early” (<3h) vs “late” (≥3h) time to angiography. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated interaction between randomized treatment and time from randomization to angiography on subsequent outcomes.ResultsOverall, a benefit of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel for cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke was seen at day 7 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, P = 0.002), day 30 (HR: 0.81, P = 0.042), and 1 year (HR: 0.80, P = 0.0045). There were no significant interactions in the <3h vs ≥3h groups at any timepoint. For major bleeding, overall there was no significant increase (HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.85‐1.27); but there was a significant interaction with no difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the early group (HR: 0.79), but higher bleeding risk with ticagrelor in the late angiography group, at 7 days (HR: 1.51, Pint = 0.002). Patterns were similar at 30 days and 1 year.ConclusionsThe benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was consistent in those undergoing early and late angiography, supporting upstream use of ticagrelor.

Objective The effects of ticagrelor in the subpopulation of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were consistent with those observed in the overall Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study. However, this subgroup included patients initially or ultimately treated conservatively. The aim of this study is to compare treatment using ticagrelor with treatment using clopidogrel in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods This post-hoc subgroup analysis compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 4949 PLATO patients with STEMI that were treated with primary PCI within 12 h of admission. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. The safety endpoint consisted of any major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included stent thrombosis. The analysis was not adequately powered to establish significance of any treatment effects. Results During a median of 286 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.9% of ticagrelor-treated patients versus 8.6% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12, p=0.38). Major bleeding occurred in 6.7% in ticagrelor-treated patients versus 6.8% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, p=0.79). No interactions were observed for the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on the primary efficacy (p=0.40) and primary safety endpoints (p=0.15) as compared with the full PLATO population. Treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89, p=0.013). Conclusions In the subset of patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was safe, and efficacy outcomes were consistent with the overall PLATO trial. Trial registration number NCT00391872; Results.