Summary Chronic angina is a common manifestation of ischaemic heart disease. Medical treatments are the mainstay approach to reduce the occurrence of angina and improve patients' quality of life. ...This Series paper focuses on commonly used standard treatments (eg, nitrates, β blockers, and calcium-channel blockers), emerging anti-angina treatments (which are not available in all parts of the world), and experimental treatments. Although many emerging treatments are available, evidence is scarce about their ability to reduce angina and ischaemia.
Summary Background Incomplete revascularisation is common after percutaneous coronary intervention and is associated with increased mortality and adverse cardiovascular events. We aimed to assess ...whether adjunctive anti-ischaemic pharmacotherapy with ranolazine would improve the prognosis of patients with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods We performed this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial at 245 centres in 15 countries in Europe, Israel, Russia, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with a history of chronic angina with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention (defined as one or more lesions with ≥50% diameter stenosis in a coronary artery ≥2 mm diameter) were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive web-based block randomisation system (block sizes of ten), to receive either twice-daily oral ranolazine 1000 mg or matching placebo. Randomisation was stratified by diabetes history (presence vs absence) and acute coronary syndrome presentation (acute coronary syndrome vs non-acute coronary syndrome). Study investigators, including all research teams, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or ischaemia-driven hospitalisation without revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01442038. Findings Between Nov 3, 2011, and May 27, 2013, we randomly assigned 2651 patients to receive ranolazine (n=1332) or placebo (n=1319); 2604 (98%) patients comprised the full analysis set. After a median follow-up of 643 days (IQR 575–758), the composite primary endpoint occurred in 345 (26%) patients assigned to ranolazine and 364 (28%) patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·82–1·10; p=0·48). Incidence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation and ischaemia-driven hospitalisation did not differ significantly between groups. 189 (14%) patients in the ranolazine group and 137 (11%) patients in the placebo group discontinued study drug because of an adverse event (p=0·04). Interpretation Ranolazine did not reduce the composite rate of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or hospitalisation without revascularisation in patients with a history of chronic angina who had incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention. Further studies are warranted to establish whether other treatment could be effective in improving the prognosis of high-risk patients in this population. Funding Gilead Sciences, Menarini.
Summary Background The aim of this study was to assess anticoagulation with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention in individuals with moderate and ...high-risk acute coronary syndromes. Methods 13 819 individuals in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial were prospectively randomly assigned to receive heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, or bivalirudin alone. Of these individuals, 7789 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography. The effect of the three regimens on the primary 30-day endpoints of composite ischaemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularisation for ischaemia), major bleeding, and net clinical outcomes (composite ischaemia or major bleeding) was assessed in this subgroup. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , with the number NCT00093158. Findings Of the individuals who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, 2561 received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 2609 received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and 2619 received bivalirudin alone. 26 (0·3%) individuals dropped out or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals with composite ischaemia, major bleeding, or net clinical outcomes at 30 days between those who received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (composite ischaemia: 243 9% patients vs 210 8% patients, p=0·16; major bleeding: 196 8% patients vs 174 7% patients, p=0·32; net clinical outcomes: 389 15% patients vs 341 13% patients, p=0·1). Rates of composite ischaemia were much the same in those who received bivalirudin alone and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (230 9% patients vs 210 8% patients, p=0·45); however, there were significantly fewer individuals who experienced major bleeding among those who received bivalirudin alone than among those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (92 4% patients vs 174 7% patients, p<0·0001, relative risk 0·52, 95% CI 0·40–0·66), resulting in a trend towards better 30-day net clinical outcomes (303 12% patients vs 341 13% patients, p=0·057; 0·87, 0·75–1·00). Interpretation Substitution of unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin with bivalirudin results in comparable clinical outcomes in patients with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in whom percutaneous coronary intervention is done. Anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone suppresses adverse ischaemic events to a similar extent as does heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, while significantly lowering the risk of major haemorrhagic complications.
Summary Background Treatment with prasugrel and aspirin improves outcomes compared with clopidogrel and aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndrome who have had angiography and percutaneous ...coronary intervention; however, no clear benefit has been shown for patients managed first with drugs only. We assessed outcomes from the TRILOGY ACS trial based on whether or not patients had coronary angiography before treatment was chosen. Methods TRILOGY ACS ( ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00699998 ) was a randomised controlled trial, done at more than 800 sites worldwide. Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were selected for management without revascularisation were randomly assigned to clopidogrel or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 months. In the present analysis we assessed differences in the primary endpoint by angiography status and whether the effects of treatment on the primary endpoint differed between patients who had angiography before enrolment and those who had not. Findings 7243 patients younger than 75 years were included in the TRILOGY ACS primary analysis. 3085 (43%) had angiography at baseline, 4158 (57%) had not. Fewer patients who had angiography reached the primary endpoint at 30 months compared with those who did not have angiography, according to Kaplan-Meier analysis (281/3085 12·8% vs 480/4158 16·5%, adjusted hazard ratio HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·53–0·75; p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who reached the primary endpoint was lower in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group for those who had angiography (122/1524 10·7% vs 159/1561 14·9%, HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·61–0·98; p=0·032) but did not differ between groups in patients who did not have angiography (242/2096 16·3% vs 238/2062 16·7%, HR 1·01, 0·84–1·20; p=0·94; pinteraction =0·08). Overall, TIMI major bleeding and GUSTO severe bleeding were rare. Bleeding outcomes tended to be higher with prasugrel but did not differ significantly between treatment groups in either angiography cohort. Interpretation Among patients who had angiography who took prasugrel there were fewer cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions, or strokes than in those who took clopidogrel. This result needs to be corroborated, but it is consistent with previous trials of more versus less intensive antiplatelet treatment. When angiography is done for acute coronary syndrome and anatomic coronary disease confirmed, the benefits and risks of intensive antiplatelet treatment exist whether the patient is treated with drugs or percutaneous coronary intervention. Funding Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly.
Summary Background Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, is the standard antithrombotic treatment following acute coronary syndromes. The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban ...reduced mortality and ischaemic events when added to DAPT, but caused increased bleeding. The safety of a dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban (in place of aspirin) with a P2Y12 inhibitor has not been assesssed in acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to assess rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily versus aspirin 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patients with acute coronary syndromes started within 10 days after presentation and continued for 6–12 months. Methods In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial (GEMINI-ACS-1) done at 371 clinical centres in 21 countries, eligible patients were older than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with positive cardiac biomarkers and either ischaemic electrocardiographic changes or an atherosclerotic culprit lesion identified during angiography. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) within 10 days after admission for the index acute coronary syndromes event to either aspirin or rivaroxaban based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks with size of four and was stratified based on the background P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisation. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Patients received a minimum of 180 days of double-blind treatment with rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily or aspirin 100 mg daily. The choice of clopidogrel or ticagrelor during trial conduct was not randomised and was based on investigator preference. The primary endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) clinically significant bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; major, minor, or requiring medical attention) up to day 390. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02293395. Findings Between April 22, 2015, and Oct 14, 2016, 3037 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned; 1518 to receive aspirin and 1519 to receive rivaroxaban. 1704 patients (56%) were in the ticagrelor and 1333 (44%) in the clopidogrel strata. Median duration of treatment was 291 days (IQR 239–354). TIMI non-CABG clinically significant bleeding was similar with rivaroxaban versus aspirin therapy (total 154 patients 5%; 80 participants 5% of 1519 vs 74 participants 5% of 1518; HR 1·09 95% CI 0·80–1·50; p=0·5840). Interpretation A dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban with a P2Y12 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes had similar risk of clinically significant bleeding as aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. A larger, adequately powered trial would be required to definitively assess the efficacy and safety of this approach. Funding Janssen Research & Development and Bayer AG.
PDF