OBJECTIVE: To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS:Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received eitherprasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg receivedclopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS: After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS: After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Authors: David Carballo; Nicolas Rodondi; Reto Auer; Sebastian Carballo; David Nanchen; Lorenz Räber; Roland Klingenberg; Pierre-Frédéric Keller; Dik Heg; Peter Jüni; Olivier Muller; Christian M Matter; Thomas F Lüscher; Stephan Windecker; Francois Mach; Baris Gencer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patrick Goldstein; Niccolò Grieco; Hüseyin Ince; Nicolas Danchin; Yvonne Ramos; Jochen Goedicke; Peter Clemmensen Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2016-04-19
Authors: Silvia Canivell; Olivier Muller; Baris Gencer; Dik Heg; Roland Klingenberg; Lorenz Räber; David Carballo; Christian Matter; Thomas Lüscher; Stephan Windecker; François Mach; Nicolas Rodondi; David Nanchen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Slayman Obeid; Antonio H Frangieh; Lorenz Räber; Nooraldaem Yousif; Thomas Gilhofer; Kyohei Yamaji; Milosz Jaguszewski; Soheila Aghlmandi; James Adams; Yannik Bockhorn; Christian Templin; Barbara E Stähli; Peter Jüni; Nicolas Rodondi; François Mach; Marco Roffi; Stephan Windecker; Willibald Maier; Fabian Nietlispach; Christian M Matter; Roland Klingenberg; Thomas F Lüscher Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 1.866