14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in real-world patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results by propensity score analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population.

          Methods

          To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y 12 inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study.

          Results

          Of the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14–36] vs 27 [18–38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 92% vs 81 %; p = 0.002) and primary PCI ≤ 12 h (82% vs 66%; p = 0.001). The patients in the ticagrelor group had a higher procedural success rate (100% vs. 96%; p = 0.044). There was no difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and in unadjusted incidence of hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) but there was a significant reduction in unadjusted cardiac hospital death in the ticagrelor group (0.7% vs 5.4%; p = 0.024). After correcting for propensity score, hospital death ( p = 0.22) and hospital MACE ( p = 0.96) did not differ in both groups. The unadjusted survival at 1 year after STEMI was higher in the ticagrelor group (97.8% vs 87.8%; p = 0.024), and this result was confirmed by propensity score analysis (hazard ratio = 0.29 [0.08–0.99]; p = 0.048).

          Conclusions

          In this real-word propensity score analysis, ticagrelor did not affect the risk of MACE during the hospital phase, or the incidence of hospital bleeding in patients with STEMI. However, in this mono-centric experience, ticagrelor resulted in improved 1-year survival, even after correction by propensity score.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0524-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: the ONSET/OFFSET study.

          Ticagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist. This is the first study to compare the onset and offset of platelet inhibition (IPA) with ticagrelor using the PLATO (PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes) trial loading dose (180 mg) with a high loading dose (600 mg) of clopidogrel. In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 123 patients with stable coronary artery disease who were taking aspirin therapy (75 to 100 mg/d) received ticagrelor (180-mg load, 90-mg BID maintenance dose [n=57]), clopidogrel (600-mg load, 75-mg/d maintenance dose [n=54]), or placebo (n=12) for 6 weeks. Greater IPA (20 micromol/L ADP, final extent) occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after loading and at 6 weeks (P 50% IPA (98% versus 31%, P 70% IPA (90% versus 16%, P<0.0001) in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group, respectively. A faster offset occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (4-to-72-hour slope [% IPA/h] -1.04 versus -0.48, P<0.0001). At 24 hours after the last dose, mean IPA was 58% for ticagrelor versus 52% for clopidogrel (P=NS). IPA for ticagrelor on day 3 after the last dose was comparable to clopidogrel at day 5; IPA on day 5 for ticagrelor was similar to clopidogrel on day 7 and did not differ from placebo (P=NS). Ticagrelor achieved more rapid and greater platelet inhibition than high-loading-dose clopidogrel; this was sustained during the maintenance phase and was faster in offset after drug discontinuation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis.

            Aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or undergoing coronary stenting. Ticagrelor, a reversible oral P2Y12-receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel and may be useful for patients with acute ST-segment elevation (STE) ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), a randomized, double-blind trial, compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel for the prevention of vascular events in 18 624 ACS patients. This report concerns the 7544 ACS patients with STE or left bundle-branch block allocated to either ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 300-mg loading dose (with provision for 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention) followed by 75 mg daily for 6 to 12 months. The reduction of the primary end point (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (10.8% versus 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.07) was consistent with the overall PLATO results. There was no interaction between presentation with STE/left bundle-branch block and randomized treatment (interaction P=0.29). Ticagrelor reduced several secondary end points, including myocardial infarction alone (HR, 0.80; P=0.03), total mortality (HR, 0.82; P=0.05), and definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.66; P=0.03). The risk of stroke, low in both groups, was higher with ticagrelor (1.7% versus 1.0%; HR,1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 2.48; P=0.02). Ticagrelor did not affect major bleeding (HR, 0.98; P=0.76). In patients with STE-ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the effects of ticagrelor were consistent with those observed in the overall PLATO trial. URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor loading doses in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) primary PCI study.

              This study sought to compare the action of prasugrel and ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). It has been documented that prasugrel and ticagrelor are able to provide effective platelet inhibition 2 h after a loading dose (LD). However, the pharmacodynamic measurements after prasugrel and ticagrelor LD have been provided by assessing only healthy volunteers or subjects with stable coronary artery disease. Fifty patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI with bivalirudin monotherapy were randomized to receive 60 mg prasugrel LD (n = 25) or 180 mg ticagrelor LD (n = 25). Residual platelet reactivity was assessed by VerifyNow at baseline and 2, 4, 8, and 12 h after LD. Platelet reactivity units (PRU) 2 h after the LD (study primary endpoint) were 217 (12 to 279) and 275 (88 to 305) in the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively (p = NS), satisfying pre-specified noninferiority criteria. High residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) (PRU ≥240) was found in 44% and 60% of patients (p = 0.258) at 2 h. The mean time to achieve a PRU <240 was 3 ± 2 h and 5 ± 4 h in the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively. The independent predictors of HRPR at 2 h were morphine use (odds ratio: 5.29; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 19.49; p = 0.012) and baseline PRU value (odds ratio: 1.014; 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.03; p = 0.046). In patients with STEMI, prasugrel showed to be noninferior as compared with ticagrelor in terms of residual platelet reactivity 2 h after the LD. The 2 drugs provide an effective platelet inhibition 2 h after the LD in only a half of patients, and at least 4 h are required to achieve an effective platelet inhibition in the majority of patients. Morphine use is associated with a delayed activity of these agents. (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs Study, NCT01510171). Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                matteovrc@gmail.com , matteo.vercellino@ospedale.al.it
                f.sanchez@asl1.liguria.it
                valentinaboasi@gmail.com
                dino.perri@alice.it
                chiaratacchi@hotmail.it
                gioel.gabrio.secco@gmail.com
                s.cattunar@asl1.liguria.it
                GPistis@ospedale.al.it
                g.mascelli@asl1.liguria.it
                Journal
                BMC Cardiovasc Disord
                BMC Cardiovasc Disord
                BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2261
                5 April 2017
                5 April 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 97
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Interventional Cardiology, Santi Antonio, Biagio e Cesare Arrigo Hospital, Alessandria, AL Italy
                [2 ]Coronary Care Unit, Sanremo Hospital, Sanremo, IM Italy
                [3 ]Interventional Cardiology, Sanremo Hospital, Sanremo, IM Italy
                [4 ]Sanremo Hospital, Sanremo, IM Italy
                [5 ]Emergency Room, Sanremo Hospital, Sanremo, IM Italy
                [6 ]Cardiology Unit, Santi Antonio, Biagio e Cesare Arrigo Hospital, Alessandria, AL Italy
                [7 ]Cardiology Unit, Sanremo Hospital, Sanremo, IM Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0021-9523
                Article
                524
                10.1186/s12872-017-0524-3
                5382425
                28381298
                820ed489-a38f-4e15-a92f-22a38326f2ec
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 29 September 2016
                : 22 March 2017
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                acute coronary syndrome,st elevation myocardial infarction,clopidogrel,ticagrelor,registry

                Comments

                Comment on this article