Managing acute coronary syndromes: Decades of progress
ABSTRACTIn managing acute coronary syndromes, physicians can draw on a large body of evidence from clinical trials. This article reviews clinical trials that inform current standards of practice regarding reperfusion, aggressive vs conservative initial approaches, and the appropriate use of aspirin, dual antiplatelet therapy, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists, anticoagulants, and statins.
KEY POINTS
- For acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, primary percutaneous coronary intervention is preferred over fibrinolytic therapy if it is available within 90 minutes of first medical contact.
- For non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, either an early invasive or conservative strategy is recommended depending on patient risk and whether intensive medical therapy is available and appropriate.
- Daily aspirin therapy is indicated for all patients with acute coronary syndromes unless they have a true aspirin allergy.
- Adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors—clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor—reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding risk and should be used only for patients with no history of stroke or transient ischemic attack.
Trial of prasugrel vs clopidogrel
The TRITON-TIMI 38 trial27 enrolled more than 13,000 patients with acute coronary syndromes, randomized to receive, either prasugrel or clopidogrel, in addition to aspirin. The patients were all undergoing PCI, so the findings do not apply to patients treated medically with an early conservative approach. The study drug was given only after the decision was made to perform PCI in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (but given immediately for patients with STEMI, because nearly all those patients undergo PCI).
Prasugrel was clearly beneficial, with a significant 20% lower rate of the combined end point of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke at 15 months. However, bleeding risk was higher with prasugrel (2.4% vs 1.8%, hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.68, P = .03). Looking at individual end points, the advantages of prasugrel were primarily in reducing rates of stent thrombosis and nonfatal MI. Death rates with the two drugs were equivalent, possibly because of the higher risk of bleeding with prasugrel. Bleeding in the prasugrel group was particularly increased in patients who underwent bypass surgery; more patients also needed transfusion.
Subgroup analysis showed that patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack had higher rates of ischemic and bleeding events with prasugrel than with clopidogrel, leading to these being labeled as absolute contraindications to prasugrel. Patients over age 75 or who weighed less than 60 kg experienced excess bleeding risk that closely matched the reduction in ischemic event rates and thus did not have a net benefit with prasugrel.
Trial of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel
The PLATO trial28 included 18,000 patients, of whom 65% underwent revascularization and 35% were treated medically. The drug—clopidogrel or ticagrelor—was given in addition to aspirin at randomization (within 24 hours of symptom onset); this more closely follows clinical practice, in which dual antiplatelet therapy is started as soon as possible. This difference makes the PLATO study more relevant to practice for patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Also, because they gave the drugs to all patients regardless of whether they were to undergo PCI, this study likely had a higher-risk population, which may be refected in the higher mortality rate at 30 days (5.9% in the clopidogrel group in the PLATO study vs 3.2% in the clopidogrel group in the TRITON study).
Another important difference between the trials testing prasugrel and ticagrelor is that patients who had already received a thienopyridine were excluded from the prasugrel trial but not from the ticagrelor trial. Nearly half the patients in the ticagrelor group were already taking clopidogrel. The clinical implication is that for patients who arrive from another facility and already have been given clopidogrel, it is safe to give ticagrelor. There is limited information about whether that is also true for prasugrel, although there is no known reason why the safety of adding prasugrel to clopidogrel should be different from that of ticagrelor.
The rate of ischemic events was 20% lower in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group, importantly including reductions in the incidence of death, MI, and stent thrombosis. There was no increase with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in bleeding associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery, likely because of the more rapid washout of the ticagrelor effect, or in the need for blood transfusions. However, the rate of bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass was about 20% higher with ticagrelor.
In summary, more intense platelet inhibition reduces the risk of ischemic events, but, particularly for the irreversible inhibitor prasugrel, at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding. In general, the net benefit of these agents in preventing the irreversible complications of MI and (in the case of ticagrelor) death favor the use of the more intense ADP inhibitors in appropriate patients. Ticagrelor is indicated in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive or conservative management; prasugrel is indicated in patients undergoing PCI, but contraindicated in patients with a previous stroke or transient ischemic event. Neither drug is indicated in patients undergoing elective PCI outside the setting of acute coronary syndromes, although these agents may be appropriate in patients with intolerance or allergy to clopidogrel.
Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists for select cases only
GP IIb/IIIa antagonists such as abciximab were previously used more commonly than they are today. Now, with routine pretreatment using thienopyridines, their role in acute coronary syndromes is less clear. They still play a role when routine dual antiplatelet therapy is not used, when prasugrel or ticagrelor is not used, and when heparin rather than an alternative antithrombin agent is used.
A meta-analysis29 of 3,755 patients showed a clear reduction in ischemic complications with abciximab as an adjunct to primary PCI for STEMI in patients treated with heparin.
Kastrati et al30 found that patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes benefited from abciximab at the time of PCI with heparin, even though they had been routinely pretreated with clopidogrel. However, benefits were seen only in high-risk patients who had presented with elevated troponins.
On the other hand, the role of GP IIb/IIIa blockade for “upstream” medical management in patients with acute coronary syndromes has been eroded by several studies.
The ACUITY trial31 randomized more than 9,000 patients to receive either routine treatment with a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor before angiography or deferred selective use in the catheterization laboratory only for patients undergoing PCI. No significant differences were found in rates of MI and death.
The Early ACS trial32 compared early routine eptifibatide vs delayed, provisional eptifibatide in 9,492 patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST elevation and who were assigned to an invasive strategy. The early-eptifibatide group received two boluses and an infusion of eptifibatide before angiography; the others received a placebo infusion, with provisional eptifibatide after angiography if the patient underwent PCI and was deemed at high risk. No significant difference in rates of death or MI were noted, and the early-eptifibatide group had significantly higher rates of bleeding and need for transfusion.
The FINESSE trial33 also discredited “facilitating” PCI by giving GP IIb/IIIa antagonists in patients with STEMI before arrival in the catheterization laboratory, with no benefit to giving abciximab ahead of time vs in the catheterization laboratory, and with an increased risk of bleeding complications.
These studies have helped narrow the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors to the catheterization laboratory in conjunction with heparin anticoagulation (as compared with bivalirudin [Angiomax]; see below) and only in select or high-risk cases. These drugs are indicated in the medical phase of management only if patients cannot be stabilized by aspirin or ADP inhibition.
NEWER ANTITHROMBOTICS: ADVANTAGES UNCLEAR
The complex coagulation cascade has a number of components, but only a few are targeted by drugs that are approved and recommended: fondaparinux (Arixtra) and oral factor Xa inhibitors affect the prothrombinase complex (including factor X); bivalirudin and oral factor IIa inhibitors affect thrombin; and heparin and the low-molecular-weight heparins inhibit both targets.
