The Tiger-II was found superior to the Judkins 3.5L/4R regarding contrast volume use, procedural and fluoroscopy time, spasm rate and RCA imaging, and inferior regarding LAD and LCX imaging.

BackgroundThe influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on platelet reactivity (PR) in prasugrel or ticagrelor treated patients is not well studied.MethodsIn an observational study involving 777 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treated by either prasugrel 10 mg od (n = 315) or ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n = 462), platelet function was assessed using the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay (in PRU) at one month post intervention.ResultsIn the overall population, ticagrelor and insulin-treated DM affected PR, with a decrease in log by 0.88 (corresponding to a 58 % decrease in PR) compared to prasugrel-treated patients (p < 0.001), and an increase in log by 0.26 (corresponding to a 30 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.01), respectively. PR in prasugrel-treated patients differed significantly by DM status: 70.0 (36.3-113.0) in non-diabetic vs 69.0 (44.5-115.3) in non insulin-treated diabetic vs 122.0 (69.0-161.0) in insulin-treated diabetic patients, p for trend = 0.01. No differences were observed in ticagrelor-treated patients. By multivariate analysis, in prasugrel-treated patients insulin-treated DM was the only factor predicting PR, with log of PR increased by 0.42 (corresponding to a 52 % increase in PR) compared to non-diabetic patients (p = 0.001). No factor was found to affect PR in ticagrelor-treated patients.ConclusionsPatients with insulin-treated DM treated with prasugrel post PCI have higher PR, than patients without DM or non insulin-treated diabetic patients treated with this drug. Ticagrelor treated patients have overall lower PR than patients on prasugrel, independent of DM status or insulin treatment.Trial registrationClinical Trials Gov. NCT01774955

Limited data are available on high platelet reactivity (HPR) rate early post fibrinolysis, while no effective way to overcome it has been proposed. In this context, we aimed to compare ticagrelor versus high dose clopidogrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who exhibit HPR post fibrinolysis. In a prospective, randomized, parallel design, 3-center study, 56 STEMI patients, out of 83 (67.5 %) screened, who presented with HPR (PRU ≥ 208 by VerifyNow) 3-48 h post fibrinolysis and prior to coronary angiography were allocated to ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose (LD)/90 mg bid maintenance dose (MD) or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/150 mg MD. Platelet reactivity was assessed at randomization (Hour 0), at Hour 2, Hour 24 and pre-discharge. The primary endpoint of platelet reactivity (in PRU) at Hour 2 was significantly lower for ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel with a least square mean difference (95 % confidence interval) of -141.7 (-173.4 to -109.9), p < 0.001. HPR rates at Hour 2 and 24 were significantly lower for ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (14.3 vs. 82.1 %, p < 0.001 and 0 vs. 25.0 %, p = 0.01 respectively), though not significantly different pre-discharge. In-hospital Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥2 bleeding occurred in 1 and 2 clopidogrel and ticagrelor-treated patients, respectively. In STEMI patients, post fibrinolysis HPR is common. Ticagrelor treats HPR more effectively compared to high dose clopidogrel therapy. Although antiplatelet regimens tested in this study were well tolerated, this finding should be considered only exploratory.

No abstract