Xing-Ji Lian1, Yi-Ning Dai2, Jin-Hua Xue3, Li-Huan Zeng2, Li-Tao Wang2, Ling Xue2, Ji-Yan Chen2, Ning Tan2, Peng-Cheng He4, Yuan-Hui Liu5, Chong-Yang Duan6. 1. Department of Nephrology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, NHC Key Laboratory of Nephrology (Sun Yat-sen University), Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nephrology, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. 3. Department of Physiology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China; The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: gdhpc100@126.com. 5. Department of Cardiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease Prevention, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China; The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: liuyuanhui@gdph.org.cn. 6. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: donyduang@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although ticagrelor exerts an antibacterial activity, its effect on infections in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We aimed to assess whether ticagrelor and clopidogrel affect infections in these patients during hospitalization. METHODS: A total of 2116 consecutive patients with STEMI undergoing PCI were divided into the ticagrelor (n = 388) and clopidogrel (n = 1728) groups. The primary outcome was infection onset. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Propensity score analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Infections developed in 327 (15.4%) patients. There was no significant difference in infection between both groups (ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel: 13.1% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.164). Patients in the ticagrelor group had lower rates of in-hospital all-cause death and MACCE than patients in the clopidogrel group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that ticagrelor and clopidogrel had a similar preventive effect on infections during hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-1.78, p = 0.380). Compared to the patients treated with clopidogrel, patients treated with ticagrelor had a slightly lower risk of other outcomes, but no statistical difference. Propensity score analyses demonstrated similar results for infections and other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clopidogrel treatment, ticagrelor treatment did not significantly alter the risk of infections during hospitalization among STEMI patients undergoing PCI, but was associated with a slightly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause death and MACCE.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although ticagrelor exerts an antibacterial activity, its effect on infections in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We aimed to assess whether ticagrelor and clopidogrel affect infections in these patients during hospitalization. METHODS: A total of 2116 consecutive patients with STEMI undergoing PCI were divided into the ticagrelor (n = 388) and clopidogrel (n = 1728) groups. The primary outcome was infection onset. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Propensity score analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS:Infections developed in 327 (15.4%) patients. There was no significant difference in infection between both groups (ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel: 13.1% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.164). Patients in the ticagrelor group had lower rates of in-hospital all-cause death and MACCE than patients in the clopidogrel group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis determined that ticagrelor and clopidogrel had a similar preventive effect on infections during hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80-1.78, p = 0.380). Compared to the patients treated with clopidogrel, patients treated with ticagrelor had a slightly lower risk of other outcomes, but no statistical difference. Propensity score analyses demonstrated similar results for infections and other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clopidogrel treatment, ticagrelor treatment did not significantly alter the risk of infections during hospitalization among STEMI patients undergoing PCI, but was associated with a slightly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause death and MACCE.