Robert C Welsh1, Robinder S Sidhu2, John A Cairns3, Shahar Lavi4, Sasko Kedev5, Raul Moreno6, Warren J Cantor7, Goran Stankovic8, Brandi Meeks9, Fei Yuan9, Vladimír Džavík10, Sanjit S Jolly9. 1. Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: Robert.Welsh@albertahealthservices.ca. 2. Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. 5. University Clinic of Cardiology, Sts Curil and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia. 6. University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 7. Southlake Regional Health Centre, Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. 8. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 9. McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 10. Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robust comparisons between oral P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention are lacking. We sought to evaluate outcomes on the basis of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in patients from the Thrombectomy With PCI Versus PCI Alone in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI (TOTAL) trial. METHODS: We grouped 9932 patients according to P2Y12 inhibitor at hospital discharge: clopidogrel (n = 6500; 65.5%), prasugrel (n = 1244; 12.5%), or ticagrelor (n = 2188; 22.0%). The primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association class IV heart failure was examined at 1 year. Secondary efficacy and safety end points were also assessed. Cox proportional hazard ratios were determined and adjusted for confounders via propensity scoring. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics differing between the 3 groups were mainly age 75 years or older, diabetes, and previous stroke. After adjustment, ticagrelor use was associated with a lower rate of the primary composite outcome compared with clopidogrel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.91; P < 0.02) and prasugrel (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = 0.02). Prasugrel use was not associated with a lower rate of the primary outcome compared with clopidogrel (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.39; P > 0.99). Neither prasugrel nor ticagrelor were associated with increased risk of stroke compared with clopidogrel. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with significantly lower rates of major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor was associated with improved outcomes compared with clopidogrel and prasugrel. An appropriately powered randomized trial is needed to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Robust comparisons between oral P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention are lacking. We sought to evaluate outcomes on the basis of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in patients from the Thrombectomy With PCI Versus PCI Alone in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI (TOTAL) trial. METHODS: We grouped 9932 patients according to P2Y12 inhibitor at hospital discharge: clopidogrel (n = 6500; 65.5%), prasugrel (n = 1244; 12.5%), or ticagrelor (n = 2188; 22.0%). The primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association class IV heart failure was examined at 1 year. Secondary efficacy and safety end points were also assessed. Cox proportional hazard ratios were determined and adjusted for confounders via propensity scoring. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics differing between the 3 groups were mainly age 75 years or older, diabetes, and previous stroke. After adjustment, ticagrelor use was associated with a lower rate of the primary composite outcome compared with clopidogrel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.91; P < 0.02) and prasugrel (aHR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = 0.02). Prasugrel use was not associated with a lower rate of the primary outcome compared with clopidogrel (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86-1.39; P > 0.99). Neither prasugrel nor ticagrelor were associated with increased risk of stroke compared with clopidogrel. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with significantly lower rates of major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational analysis of STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor was associated with improved outcomes compared with clopidogrel and prasugrel. An appropriately powered randomized trial is needed to confirm these findings.
Authors: Quinton Barry; Angel Fu; Rene Boudreau; Alyssa Chow; Cole Clifford; Trevor Simard; Aun Yeong Chong; Alexander Dick; Michael Froeschl; Christopher Glover; Benjamin Hibbert; Marino Labinaz; Michel Le May; Juan Russo; Derek So Journal: CJC Open Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Piotr Adamski; Malwina Barańska; Małgorzata Ostrowska; Wiktor Kuliczkowski; Katarzyna Buszko; Katarzyna Kościelska-Kasprzak; Bożena Karolko; Andrzej Mysiak; Jacek Kubica Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.241