Vikas Aggarwal1, Ehrin J Armstrong2,3, Wenhui Liu2,3, Thomas M Maddox2,3, P Michael Ho2,3, Evan Carey2,3,4, Tracy Wang5, Matthew Sherwood5, Thomas T Tsai3,6, John S Rumsfeld2,3, Steven M Bradley7,8. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Cardiology, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado. 3. Department of Cardiology, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Department of Cardiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado. 5. Department of Cardiology, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Cardiology, Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Denver, Colorado. 7. Department of Cardiology, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado. steven.bradley@va.gov. 8. Department of Cardiology, University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. steven.bradley@va.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is more effective than clopidogrel in preventing thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but it increases the risk of bleeding in subgroups of patients. There is limited data on whether prasugrel use in routine practice is targeted to clinical settings with greatest anticipated patient benefit. METHODS: In a national cohort of 11 617 veterans who underwent PCI between 2010 and 2013 at Veterans Administration hospitals nationwide, we assessed overall trends in the use of prasugrel and the frequency of prasugrel use in patients with contraindications (prior transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), higher bleeding risk (age ≥75 or weight <60 kg), and nonindicated settings (non-acute coronary syndrome [non-ACS]). We then evaluated the association between prasugrel use and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding rates. RESULTS: Overall, 1040 (9.0%) patients who received prasugrel after PCI were included. Prasugrel was infrequently used in contraindicated (2.4%) or higher-bleeding-risk (1.8%) settings. Additionally, 35.8% of patients received prasugrel in settings that lack evidence of clinical benefit (ie, non-ACS). Compared with clopidogrel, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding outcomes with prasugrel therapy at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel use after PCI in the Veterans Administration is low and prasugrel was rarely used in contraindicated or high-bleeding-risk settings. However, a third of patients received prasugrel for off-label non-ACS indications that lack efficacy data.
BACKGROUND:Prasugrel is more effective than clopidogrel in preventing thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but it increases the risk of bleeding in subgroups of patients. There is limited data on whether prasugrel use in routine practice is targeted to clinical settings with greatest anticipated patient benefit. METHODS: In a national cohort of 11 617 veterans who underwent PCI between 2010 and 2013 at Veterans Administration hospitals nationwide, we assessed overall trends in the use of prasugrel and the frequency of prasugrel use in patients with contraindications (prior transient ischemic attack or cerebrovascular accident), higher bleeding risk (age ≥75 or weight <60 kg), and nonindicated settings (non-acute coronary syndrome [non-ACS]). We then evaluated the association between prasugrel use and 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding rates. RESULTS: Overall, 1040 (9.0%) patients who received prasugrel after PCI were included. Prasugrel was infrequently used in contraindicated (2.4%) or higher-bleeding-risk (1.8%) settings. Additionally, 35.8% of patients received prasugrel in settings that lack evidence of clinical benefit (ie, non-ACS). Compared with clopidogrel, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding outcomes with prasugrel therapy at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Prasugrel use after PCI in the Veterans Administration is low and prasugrel was rarely used in contraindicated or high-bleeding-risk settings. However, a third of patients received prasugrel for off-label non-ACS indications that lack efficacy data.
Authors: S T Normand; M B Landrum; E Guadagnoli; J Z Ayanian; T J Ryan; P D Cleary; B J McNeil Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Bernard R Chaitman; Pamela M Hartigan; David C Booth; Koon K Teo; G B John Mancini; William J Kostuk; John A Spertus; David J Maron; Marcin Dada; Robert A O'Rourke; William S Weintraub; Daniel S Berman; Leslee J Shaw; William E Boden Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-07-27
Authors: James Brian Byrd; Rebecca Vigen; Mary E Plomondon; John S Rumsfeld; Tamára L Box; Stephan D Fihn; Thomas M Maddox Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Thomas T Tsai; P Michael Ho; Stanley Xu; J David Powers; Nikki M Carroll; Susan M Shetterly; Thomas M Maddox; John S Rumsfeld; Karen Margolis; Alan S Go; David J Magid Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Stephen D Wiviott; Eugene Braunwald; Carolyn H McCabe; Gilles Montalescot; Witold Ruzyllo; Shmuel Gottlieb; Franz-Joseph Neumann; Diego Ardissino; Stefano De Servi; Sabina A Murphy; Jeffrey Riesmeyer; Govinda Weerakkody; C Michael Gibson; Elliott M Antman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-11-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amneet Sandhu; Milan Seth; Simon Dixon; David Share; David Wohns; Thomas Lalonde; Mauro Moscucci; Arthur L Riba; Michael Grossman; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-05-14
Authors: Peter Damman; Christoph Varenhorst; Sasha Koul; Peter Eriksson; David Erlinge; Bo Lagerqvist; Stefan K James Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.778