Comparison of the effects of P2Y12 receptor antagonists on platelet function and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing Primary PCI: A substudy of the HEAT-PPCI trial.

AIMS The HEAT-PPCI trial compared bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The aim of this study was to report pre-specified, secondary analyses comparing the effects of P2Y12 inhibiting agents on platelet reactivity and clinical events. METHODS AND RESULTS All patients received preprocedural oral antiplatelet therapy. During the early stages of the trial, the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice was prasugrel with some use of clopidogrel. Later, routine therapy switched to ticagrelor. For cases performed during working hours, multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) was used to assess ADP-induced platelet aggregation at the end of the index procedure. The effect of P2Y12 inhibitors on the primary efficacy (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]) and safety (major bleeding) outcomes was assessed in all patients. Multiple logistic regression was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. With MEA data from 469 patients, prasugrel therapy resulted in significantly greater suppression of ADP-induced platelet aggregation at 40 U (23, 78) (median; interquartile range [IQR]) when compared against ticagrelor 75 U (41, 100.75); p<0.001 or clopidogrel 79 U (56, 96); p<0.001. In the entire study population (N=1,803), prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly fewer MACE (26/497; 5.2%) in comparison to ticagrelor (83/1,123; 7.4%) or clopidogrel (18/183; 9.8%); odds ratio (OR) 0.64, confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.99, p=0.045. For major bleeding, there were no significant differences among the three groups - clopidogrel (3/183; 1.6%), prasugrel (13/497; 2.6%) and ticagrelor (43/1,123; 3.8%); OR 0.73, CI: 0.39-1.35, p=0.31. Patients treated with clopidogrel had more high-risk features and clopidogrel use was more common as an alternative to prasugrel. After adjustment, there were no significant differences in the rates of MACE (OR 0.70, CI: 0.41-1.21, p=0.20) or major bleeding (OR 0.80, CI: 0.41-1.60, p=0.53). CONCLUSIONS In HEAT-PPCI, patients who received prasugrel (rather than clopidogrel or ticagrelor) had significantly greater suppression of ADP-induced platelet aggregation at the end of the procedure. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no significant differences in ischaemic or bleeding outcomes among the antiplatelet therapies.

[1]  D. Angiolillo,et al.  Antithrombotic therapy for patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI , 2017, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[2]  J. Mrózek,et al.  Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study , 2016, Circulation.

[3]  J. Jukema,et al.  Use, patient selection and outcomes of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor treatment in patients with STEMI based on contemporary European registries. , 2016, European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy.

[4]  L. Bonello,et al.  COMparison of Platelet reactivity following prAsugrel and ticagrelor loading dose in ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarctION patients: The COMPASSION study , 2015, Platelets.

[5]  R. Abbate,et al.  Comparison of double (360 mg) ticagrelor loading dose with standard (60 mg) prasugrel loading dose in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: the Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs (RAPID) primary PCI 2 study. , 2014, American heart journal.

[6]  H. Schunkert,et al.  Randomized Comparison of Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Planned Invasive Strategy—Design and Rationale of the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 5 Trial , 2014, Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research.

[7]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Consensus and update on the definition of on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate associated with ischemia and bleeding. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  R. Abbate,et al.  Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor loading doses in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) primary PCI study. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  M. Valgimigli,et al.  Effects of pre‐hospital clopidogrel administration on early and late residual platelet reactivity in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary intervention , 2013, Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH.

[10]  I. Xanthopoulou,et al.  Randomized Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel Antiplatelet Effects in Patients with ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  I. Xanthopoulou,et al.  Prasugrel Versus High Dose Clopidogrel to Overcome Early High on Clopidogrel Platelet Reactivity in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2012, Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy.

[12]  R. Ferrari,et al.  Prasugrel versus tirofiban bolus with or without short post-bolus infusion with or without concomitant prasugrel administration in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing coronary stenting: the FABOLUS PRO (Facilitation through Aggrastat By drOpping or shortening Infusion Line in patients wit , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[13]  D. Ardissino,et al.  Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Reperfusion With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial Subgroup Analysis , 2010, Circulation.

[14]  Claes Held,et al.  Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  E. Antman,et al.  Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial , 2009, The Lancet.

[16]  E. Antman,et al.  Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  W. Siess,et al.  Multiple electrode aggregometry: A new device to measure platelet aggregation in whole blood , 2006, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[18]  J. Concato,et al.  A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. , 1996, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  H. Thiele,et al.  Double-blind, randomized, prospective comparison of loading doses of 600 mg clopidogrel versus 60 mg prasugrel in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction scheduled for primary percutaneous intervention: the ETAMI trial (early thienopyridine treatment to improve primary PCI in , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[20]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  ESC / EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization , 2014 .

[21]  M. Vaduganathan,et al.  Comparison of platelet inhibition by prasugrel versus ticagrelor over time in patients with acute myocardial infarction , 2014, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

[22]  N. Toma Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The ONSET/OFFSET study. , 2010, Maedica.

[23]  F. Verheugt,et al.  Impaired bioavailability of clopidogrel in patients with a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. , 2008, Thrombosis research.