No abstract

BackgroundElderly represents a subgroup of high-risk ACS patients due to their advanced age and other comorbidities. Unfortunately, they are also often under-represented in many studies and clinical trials. Furthermore, cardiologists commonly find difficulties in the choice of the antiplatelet treatment and even on whether invasive revascularization should be used. In this study, the management of elderly ACS patients regarding antiplatelet therapy and revascularization procedures will be analyzed.Methods1717 ACS patients were consecutively included in this study from 3 tertiary Hospitals in the Southeast of Spain. Of them, 529 (30.8%) were ≥ 75 years. They were mainly male (60.7%) with a mean age of 81.4±4.7 years. Clinical characteristics, treatment received (antiaplatelet therapy, revascularization) and outcome were analyzed.ResultsRegression analysis showed that being ≥ 75 years is independently associated with neither performing catheterization (79.6% vs 97.1%), nor revascularization (51.8% vs 72.5%), being the medical conservative treatment the election in these elderly patients (40.6% vs 18.9%) (p < 0.001 for all). Furthermore, ticagrelor prescription were significantly decreased in older patients (11.5% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001). Regarding patients outcome after one-year of follow-up, being ≥ 75 years was associated with death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and major bleeding (all of them p < 0.001). Importantly, nor performing catheterization was independently associated with MACE and death in Cox multivariate analysis in elderly patients.ConclusionsElderly patients with ACS are undertreated both invasively and pharmacologically, and this fact might be associated with the observed worse outcomes.

No abstract

Background There is a lack of evidence regarding the benefits of β-blocker treatment after invasively managed acute myocardial infarction (MI) without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results TREatment with Beta-blockers after myOcardial infarction withOut reduced ejection fraction (REBOOT) trial is a pragmatic, controlled, prospective, randomized, open-label blinded endpoint (PROBE design) clinical trial testing the benefits of β-blocker maintenance therapy in patients discharged after MI with or without ST-segment elevation. Patients eligible for participation are those managed invasively during index hospitalization (coronary angiography), with LVEF &gt;40%, and no history of heart failure (HF). At discharge, patients will be randomized 1:1 to β-blocker therapy (agent and dose according to treating physician) or no β-blocker therapy. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal reinfarction, or HF hospitalization over a median follow-up period of 2.75 years (minimum 2 years, maximum 3 years). Key secondary endpoints include the incidence of the individual components of the primary composite endpoint, the incidence of cardiac death, and incidence of malignant ventricular arrhythmias or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Conclusion The REBOOT trial will provide robust evidence to guide the prescription of β-blockers to patients discharged after MI without reduced LVEF.

Background: Prasugrel and ticagrelor have demonstrated higher efficacy than clopidogrel in their main clinical trials for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the long-term prognosis and different clinical characteristics related to the type of antiplatelet prescription in current clinical practice ACS patients have not been analysed in depth. The objective of this study was to analyse the clinical profile of ACS and the efficacy and safety of novel oral P2Y 12 inhibitors in current clinical practice patients discharged after ACS. Methods:We collected data from the ACHILLES registry, and an observational, prospective and multicentre registry of patients discharged after ACS. We analysed baseline characteristics, clinical profile and therapy during ACS admission and compared with the different treatments at discharge. After 1 year of follow-up, ischaemic and major bleeding events were analysed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and Kaplan Meier curves were also plotted.Results: Of 1717 consecutive patients, 1294 (75.4%) were discharged with a P2Y12 inhibitor without oral anticoagulation. Novel oral P2Y 12 inhibitors were indicated in 47%. Patients treated with clopidogrel were elderly (69.1 ± 13.4 vs 60.4 ± 11.5 years; P < .001) and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. GRACE and CRUSADE scores were higher in the clopidogrel than in novel oral P2Y 12 inhibitors group (P < .001). After 1 year of follow-up, 64 (5.0%/year) patients had a new myocardial infarction, 127 (10.0%/year) had a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and 78 (6.1%/year) died. Patients treated with clopidogrel had a The authors confirm that the Principal Investigator for this paper is J.M.R.-N. All patients included in the ACHILLES registry, 1717 patients, provided individual signed informed consent and an external independent audit of the registry data (independent clinical research organization) was performed evaluating the correct inclusion of the patients, data analysed, compliance with the ethical principles and the presence of all signed informed consent of the patients included.

Introduction and aimsPatients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are often managed conservatively. Clinical practice guidelines recommend treating these patients with the same pharmacological drugs as those who receive invasive treatment. We analyze the use of new antiplatelet drugs (NADs) and other recommended treatments in people discharged following an NSTE-ACS according to the treatment strategy used, comparing the medium-term prognosis between groups.MethodsProspective observational multicenter registry study in 1717 patients discharged from hospital following an ACS; 1143 patients had experienced an NSTE-ACS. We analyzed groups receiving the following treatment: No cardiac catheterization (NO CATH): n = 134; 11.7%; Cardiac catheterization without revascularization (CATH-NO REVASC): n = 256; 22.4%; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): n = 629; 55.0%; and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG): n = 124; 10.8%. We assessed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and hemorrhagic complications at one year.ResultsNO CATH was the oldest, had the most comorbidities, and was at the highest risk for ischemic and hemorrhagic events. Few patients who were not revascularized with PCI received NADs (NO CATH: 3.7%; CATH-NO REVASC: 10.6%; PCI: 43.2%; CABG: 3.2%; p<0.001). Non-revascularized patients also received fewer beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and statins (p<0.001). At one year, MACE incidence in NO CATH group was three times that of the other groups (30.1%, p<0.001), and all-cause mortality was also much higher (26.3%, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in hemorrhagic events. Belonging to NO CATH group was an independent predictor for MACE at one year in the multivariate analysis (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.29–5.73; p = 0.008).ConclusionsDespite current invasive management of NSTE-ACS, patients not receiving catheterization are at very high risk for under treatment with recommended drugs, including NADs. Their medium-term prognosis is poor, with high mortality. Patients treated with PCI receive better pharmacological management, with high use of NADs.

No abstract

No abstract