Pollack, Charles V.

Background: In the ACUITY Trial, patients (pts) with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) had significantly higher rates of ischemic events and major bleeding compared to pts without CRI at 30 days. Bivalirudin (Biv) monotherapy provided similar protection from ischemic events but with significantly less bleeding compared to heparin + a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor (Hep+GPI). The impact of a Biv alone strategy on one year mortality is unknown. Methods: Pts with moderate and high risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to Hep + GPI, Biv + GPI, or Biv monotherapy. CRI was defined as baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min. We evaluated the impact of CRI and antithrombotic strategy on composite ischemia (death, MI, or revascularization) and mortality at one year. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 12,933 had baseline CrCl data: 2468 (19.1%) pts had CrCl ≥60 mL/min and 10,465 (80.9%) pts had CrCl <60 mL/min. Rates of major bleeding at 30 days in pts with CRI were significantly lower with Biv alone vs Hep+GPI (6.2% vs 9.8%, p<0.01). Pts with CRI had higher mortality at one year compared to those without CRI (8.7% vs 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference in composite ischemia for pts who received Biv monotherapy vs Hep + GPI (23.0% vs 21.4%, p=0.10). One year mortality by antithrombin strategy is shown in the Figure . Conclusions: CRI in pts with ACS is associated with higher rates of one year mortality. In these high risk pts, Biv monotherapy improved early clinical outcomes compared to Hep + GPI by reducing major bleeding, and resulted in similar rates of one year mortality. Cumulative Mortality at One Year, Patients with CRI

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.