Joon Ho Ahn1, Youngkeun Ahn2, Myung Ho Jeong1, Ju Han Kim1, Young Joon Hong1, Doo Sun Sim1, Min Chul Kim1, Jin Yong Hwang3, Jung Han Yoon4, In Whan Seong5, Seung-Ho Hur6, Seok Kyu Oh7. 1. Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea. 2. Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea. Electronic address: cecilyk@hanmail.net. 3. Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, South Korea. 4. Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, South Korea. 5. Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, South Korea. 6. Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Daegu, South Korea. 7. Wonkwang University Hospital, Iksan, South Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of ticagrelor is questionable in East Asian populations. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) are considered as high risk patients who might benefit from ticagrelor treatment. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in AMI patients with MVD in Korea. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2275 patients between November 2011 and June 2015, diagnosed with AMI with MVD after successful percutaneous coronary intervention who were registered in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry - National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were enrolled. Patients were divided into ticagrelor (n = 837) and clopidogrel group (n = 1438). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, non-fatal MI, target vessel revascularization, or ischemic stroke during 2 years of clinical follow-up. Secondary endpoints were thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding, net clinical event composed of MACE and TIMI major bleeding, any repeated percutaneous coronary intervention, heart failure requiring re-hospitalization, and stent thrombosis. After propensity score matching analysis, the primary endpoint was lower in ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (8.6 % vs. 11.9 %; HR: 0.68; 95 % CI: 0.50-0.94; p = 0.018). The risk of TIMI major or minor bleeding was higher in the ticagrelor group (10.8 % vs. 4.8 %; HR: 2.51; 95 % CI: 1.68-3.76; p < 0.001). The net clinical event was similar between ticagrelor and clopidogrel group (11.3 % vs. 13.6 %; HR 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.60-1.11; p = 0.195). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of MACE than clopidogrel for AMI patients with MVD in Korea. However, the risk of TIMI major or minor bleeding was higher and the net clinical benefit was similar. Further large-scale multi-center randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the proper use dual antiplatelet therapy in East Asian populations.
BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of ticagrelor is questionable in East Asian populations. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with multivessel disease (MVD) are considered as high risk patients who might benefit from ticagrelor treatment. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in AMIpatients with MVD in Korea. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2275 patients between November 2011 and June 2015, diagnosed with AMI with MVD after successful percutaneous coronary intervention who were registered in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry - National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) were enrolled. Patients were divided into ticagrelor (n = 837) and clopidogrel group (n = 1438). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, non-fatal MI, target vessel revascularization, or ischemic stroke during 2 years of clinical follow-up. Secondary endpoints were thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding, net clinical event composed of MACE and TIMI major bleeding, any repeated percutaneous coronary intervention, heart failure requiring re-hospitalization, and stent thrombosis. After propensity score matching analysis, the primary endpoint was lower in ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (8.6 % vs. 11.9 %; HR: 0.68; 95 % CI: 0.50-0.94; p = 0.018). The risk of TIMI major or minor bleeding was higher in the ticagrelor group (10.8 % vs. 4.8 %; HR: 2.51; 95 % CI: 1.68-3.76; p < 0.001). The net clinical event was similar between ticagrelor and clopidogrel group (11.3 % vs. 13.6 %; HR 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.60-1.11; p = 0.195). CONCLUSION:Ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of MACE than clopidogrel for AMIpatients with MVD in Korea. However, the risk of TIMI major or minor bleeding was higher and the net clinical benefit was similar. Further large-scale multi-center randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the proper use dual antiplatelet therapy in East Asian populations.
Authors: Sebastian Völz; Petur Petursson; Jacob Odenstedt; Dan Ioanes; Inger Haraldsson; Oskar Angerås; Christian Dworeck; Geir Hirlekar; Anna Myredal; Per Albertsson; Truls Råmunddal; Björn Redfors; Elmir Omerovic Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 5.501