Department of Cardiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (M.A.H.v.L., N.W.v.d.H., G.N.J., H.E., A.N., J.S.L., G.A.d.W., A.C.v.R., R.N., N.v.R.).
Department of Cardiology, Isala Heart Centre, Zwolle, The Netherlands (M.A.H.v.L.).
Circulation. 2019 Jan 29;139(5):636-646. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035931.
Despite successful restoration of epicardial vessel patency with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary microvascular injury occurs in a large proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, adversely affecting clinical and functional outcome. Ticagrelor has been reported to increase plasma adenosine levels, which might have a protective effect on the microcirculation. We investigated whether ticagrelor maintenance therapy after revascularized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is associated with less coronary microvascular injury compared to prasugrel maintenance therapy.
A total of 110 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction received a loading dose of ticagrelor and were randomized to maintenance therapy of ticagrelor (n=56) or prasugrel (n=54) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was coronary microvascular injury at 1 month, as determined with the index of microcirculatory resistance in the infarct-related artery. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging was performed during the acute phase and at 1 month.
The primary outcome of index of microcirculatory resistance was not superior in ticagrelor- or prasugrel-treated patients (ticagrelor, 21 [interquartile range, 15-39] U; prasugrel, 18 [interquartile range, 11-29] U; P=0.08). Recovery of microcirculatory resistance over time was not better in patients with ticagrelor versus prasugrel (ticagrelor, -13.9 U; prasugrel, -13.5 U; P=0.96). Intramyocardial hemorrhage was observed less frequently in patients receiving ticagrelor (23% versus 43%; P=0.04). At 1 month, no difference in infarct size was observed (ticagrelor, 7.6 [interquartile range, 3.7-14.4] g, prasugrel 9.9 [interquartile range, 5.7-16.6] g; P=0.17). The occurrence of microvascular obstruction was not different in patients on ticagrelor (28%) or prasugrel (41%; P=0.35). Plasma adenosine concentrations were not different during the index procedure and during maintenance therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel.
In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, ticagrelor maintenance therapy was not superior to prasugrel in preventing coronary microvascular injury in the infarct-related territory as assessed by the index of microcirculatory resistance, and this resulted in a comparable infarct size at 1 month.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02422888.
尽管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗成功恢复了心外膜血管通畅,但 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者中仍有很大一部分发生冠状动脉微血管损伤,这对临床和功能结局产生不利影响。替格瑞洛已被报道可增加血浆腺苷水平,这可能对微循环有保护作用。我们研究了与普拉格雷维持治疗相比,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者接受替格瑞洛维持治疗是否与较少的冠状动脉微血管损伤相关。
共 110 例 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者接受替格瑞洛负荷量治疗,并随机分为替格瑞洛(n=56)或普拉格雷(n=54)维持治疗。主要终点是通过梗死相关动脉的微血管阻力指数(index of microcirculatory resistance,IMR)评估 1 个月时的冠状动脉微血管损伤。在急性期和 1 个月时进行心血管磁共振成像检查。
替格瑞洛或普拉格雷治疗患者的 IMR 主要结局均无优势(替格瑞洛:21[四分位距,15-39]U;普拉格雷:18[四分位距,11-29]U;P=0.08)。替格瑞洛与普拉格雷相比,患者的微血管阻力恢复时间无差异(替格瑞洛:-13.9 U;普拉格雷:-13.5 U;P=0.96)。接受替格瑞洛治疗的患者较少发生心肌内出血(23%比 43%;P=0.04)。1 个月时,梗死面积无差异(替格瑞洛:7.6[四分位距,3.7-14.4]g,普拉格雷:9.9[四分位距,5.7-16.6]g;P=0.17)。替格瑞洛(28%)或普拉格雷(41%)患者的微血管阻塞发生率无差异(P=0.35)。替格瑞洛或普拉格雷维持治疗期间,血浆腺苷浓度在指数操作期间和期间均无差异。
在 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者中,与普拉格雷相比,替格瑞洛维持治疗在通过 IMR 评估梗死相关区域的冠状动脉微血管损伤方面并未显示出优势,并且在 1 个月时导致了相似的梗死面积。