Dataset Information

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite routine use of clopidogrel, adverse cardiovascular events recur among some patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To optimize antiplatelet therapies, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of high versus standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in these patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high (>75 mg) and standard maintenance doses of clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI were included. The primary efficacy and safety end-points were major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACE/MACCE) and major bleeding. The secondary end-points were other ischemic and bleeding adverse effects. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for each outcome was estimated.

Results

14 RCTs with 4424 patients were included. Compared with standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel, high-maintenance-dose clopidogrel significantly reduced the incidence of MACE/MACCE (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83), stent thrombosis (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74), without significant decrease of the risk of cardiovascular death (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33). For safety outcomes, it did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32), minor bleeding (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66) and any bleeding (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43).

Conclusion

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel reduces the recurrence of most ischemic events in patients post-PCI without increasing the risk of bleeding complications.

SUBMITTER: Chen Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3806846 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen Yu Y Zhang Yachen Y Tang Yong Y Huang Xiaohong X Xie Yuquan Y

PloS one 20131023 10

<h4>Background</h4>Despite routine use of clopidogrel, adverse cardiovascular events recur among some patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To optimize antiplatelet therapies, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of high versus standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high (>75 mg) and standard maintenance doses of clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI were included. The primary ...[more]

PMID: 24194947

Similar Datasets

Project description:Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel ("smoker's paradox"). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear.We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT-OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double-dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2-7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome (P=0.031) and major bleeding (P=0.002). Double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.87, P=0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80-1.14, P=0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48-1.24, P=0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double-dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37-2.60, P<0.0001). Double-dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42-0.93; P for interaction=0.19).In smokers, a double-dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines currently recommend ticagrelor over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on randomized clinical trial data in which ticagrelor reduced major adverse coronary events (MACE) vs clopidogrel but increased bleeding and dyspnea.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of MACE with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), to compare major bleeding and dyspnea, and to evaluate the association between P2Y12 inhibitor adherence and MACE.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cohort study using data of patients discharged alive after PCI for ACS from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up to 1 year. Analysis began April 2018.ExposuresOutpatient prescription for ticagrelor or clopidogrel within 31 days after PCI. Adherence was defined as a medication refill adherence value of 80% or higher.Main outcomes and measuresMajor adverse coronary events, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for ACS, unplanned coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 365 days after index PCI. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for major bleeding and emergency department visit for dyspnea.ResultsOf 11 185 individuals who underwent PCI, the median (interquartile range) age was 61 (54-71) years, and 2760 (24.7%) were women. Ticagrelor users (4076 [36.4%]) were generally younger and had fewer cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities than clopidogrel users. Ticagrelor was not associated with lower risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.10); however, it was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.78) and dyspnea (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.47-2.65). A total of 3328 ticagrelor users (81.6%) were adherent during the study vs 5256 of clopidogrel users (73.9%) (P < .001; χ2 = 86.4). In the full cohort, adherence was associated with a lower MACE risk (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90 for adherence of ≥80% vs <80%). Differences in other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent with primary analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this population-based cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI, outpatient use of ticagrelor was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in MACE vs clopidogrel; however, it was associated with more major bleeding and dyspnea.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.ResultsSixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).ConclusionsNeither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

Project description:BackgroundAcute coronary syndrome (ACS) is an important disease threatening human life and health. Many studies have shown that the loading dose of atorvastatin can significantly improve the prognosis of patients with ACS, and reduce the mortality. However, this conclusion is not consistent. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Chinese patients with ACS using a meta-analysis based on a systematic review of published articles.MethodsWe systematically reviewed published studies, evaluating the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with ACS. The retrieval time is limited from inception to 2 November 2016, and the retrieved databases included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, the VIP database and the Wang Fang database. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and then extracted the data. Stata 11.0 was used for data analysis.ResultsIn total, 11 articles, which included 802 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Among these patients, 398 patients were in the high-dose group (20 mg/day) and 404 patients were in the conventional dose group (10 mg/day). Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the conventional dose group: 1) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the hs-CRP level after PCI, including at 24 hours (SMD = -0.65, 95%CI -0.84 ~ -0.47, P = 0.000), 48 hours (SMD = -0.40, 95%CI -0.68 ~ -0.11, P = 0.006), and four weeks (SMD = -1.64, 95%CI -2.01 ~ -1.26, P = 0.000). 2) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the levels of LDL-C and cTnT, including the level of LDL-C at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.89, 95%CI -1.10 ~ -0.69, P = 0.000), and the level of cTnT at 24 h after PCI (SMD = -1.93, 95%CI -2.28 ~ -1.59, P = 0.000), and increase the level of HDL-C at 48 h after PCI (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI 0.34 ~ 0.88, P = 0.000). 3) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the levels of TG and TC, including the level of TG at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.94, 95%CI -1.17 ~ -0.71, P = 0.000), the level of TC at 48 h after PCI (SMD = -0.35, 95%CI -0.68 ~ -0.01, P = 0.043), and the level of TC at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.77, 95%CI -0.98 ~ -0.56, P = 0.000).ConclusionsOur systematic review and meta-analysis showed that, compared with the conventional dose, the loading dose of rosuvastatin was more beneficial to patients with ACS in China and is suitable for clinical application. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of included articles, this conclusion still needs to be confirmed by multicenter clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent guidelines recommend ticagrelor as the preferred P2Y12 platelet inhibitor for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), primarily based on a single large randomized clinical trial. The benefits and risks associated with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in routine practice merits attention.ObjectiveTo determine the association of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel with ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ACS in clinical practice.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI and received ticagrelor or clopidogrel was conducted using 2 United States electronic health record-based databases and 1 nationwide South Korean database from November 2011 to March 2019. Patients were matched using a large-scale propensity score algorithm, and the date of final follow-up was March 2019.ExposuresTicagrelor vs clopidogrel.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 12 months, composed of ischemic events (recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, or ischemic stroke) and hemorrhagic events (hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding). Secondary outcomes included NACE or mortality, all-cause mortality, ischemic events, hemorrhagic events, individual components of the primary outcome, and dyspnea at 12 months. The database-level hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled to calculate summary HRs by random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAfter propensity score matching among 31 290 propensity-matched pairs (median age group, 60-64 years; 29.3% women), 95.5% of patients took aspirin together with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The 1-year risk of NACE was not significantly different between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (15.1% [3484/23 116 person-years] vs 14.6% [3290/22 587 person-years]; summary HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.10]; P = .06). There was also no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (2.0% for ticagrelor vs 2.1% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.81-1.16]; P = .74) or ischemic events (13.5% for ticagrelor vs 13.4% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; P = .32). The risks of hemorrhagic events (2.1% for ticagrelor vs 1.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.13-1.61]; P = .001) and dyspnea (27.3% for ticagrelor vs 22.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.26]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the ticagrelor group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with ACS who underwent PCI in routine clinical practice, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with significant difference in the risk of NACE at 12 months. Because the possibility of unmeasured confounders cannot be excluded, further research is needed to determine whether ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in this setting.

Dataset Information

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets