ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Panminerva Medica 2022 March;64(1):9-16

DOI: 10.23736/S0031-0808.21.04437-2

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Clinical use of cangrelor: a real-world multicenter experience from South Italy

Martino PEPE ¹ ✉, Claudio LAROSA ², Plinio CIRILLO ³, Eugenio CARULLI ¹, Cinzia FORLEO ¹, Palma L. NESTOLA ¹, Vincenzo ERCOLANO ³, Pasquale D’ALESSANDRO ⁴, Arturo GIORDANO ⁵, Giuseppe BIONDI-ZOCCAI ^{6, 7}, Marco MOSCARELLI ⁸, Angela I. PALMIOTTO ², Giovanni ESPOSITO ³, Stefano FAVALE ¹

¹ Section of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Cardiothoracic (DAI), University of Bari, Bari, Italy; ² Division of Cardiology, Lorenzo Bonomo Hospital, Andria, Barletta-Andria-Trani, Italy; ³ School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy; ⁴ Department of Cardiology, Santissima Annunziata Hospital, Taranto, Italy; ⁵ Unit of Invasive Cardiology, “Pineta Grande” Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy; ⁶ Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University, Latina, Italy; ⁷ Mediterranea Cardiocentro, Naples, Italy; ⁸ Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular, Maria Cecilia Hospital GVM Care and Research, Cotignola, Ravenna, Italy

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid and oral P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-I) represents the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Cangrelor, the first intravenous P2Y12-I, is deemed to overcome the drawbacks of the oral administration; nevertheless, real world data on this new drug are scanty. We sought to investigate routine clinical use of cangrelor in four interventional centers of Italy.
METHODS: We enrolled 241 consecutive patients (196 ACS, 45 CCS) treated with cangrelor during PCI. Drug administration modalities and in-hospital clinical outcomes were evaluated. A subanalysis in patients selected based on the CHAMPION Phoenix trial inclusion/exclusion criteria (CHAMPION-like subpopulation) was also performed.
RESULTS: Cangrelor was mainly utilized in ACS patients, who presented poorer clinical conditions and higher bleeding risk. Cangrelor was given only in P2Y12-I naïve patients; switch to clopidogrel was always done at the end of the infusion, while ticagrelor or prasugrel were prevalently given 30 minutes before. In-hospital mortality was 10.0% and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding was 2.5%. Bleeding data showed nevertheless to be in line with the CHAMPION Phoenix results in the “CHAMPION-like” subpopulation.
CONCLUSIONS: Cangrelor was predominantly used in ACS with modalities substantially in accord with the label indications. Poor clinical outcomes are due to the prevalent utilization in highly challenging clinical settings, nevertheless the rate of bleeding and stent thrombosis are in line with the randomized trials if analyzed in a subpopulation of comparable risk profile.

KEY WORDS: Cangrelor; Dual antiplatelet therapy; Acute coronary syndrome