Dataset Information

Double-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Clopidogrel According to Smoking Status Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Bossard M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5721756 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPotent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear.AimsWe sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI.ConclusionsTicagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

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:ImportanceLoading doses of atorvastatin did not show reduction on clinical outcomes in the overall population of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Statins Evaluation in Coronary Procedures and Revascularization (SECURE-PCI) trial, but a potential benefit was identified in patients who subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectivesTo determine whether periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin are associated with decreased 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS undergoing PCI according to type of ACS and timing of atorvastatin administration before PCI.Design, setting, and participantsSecondary analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites that enrolled 4191 patients with ACS intended to be treated with PCI between April 18, 2012, and October 06, 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized to 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin or matching placebo before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. By protocol, all patients (regardless of treatment group) received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was MACE through 30 days, composed by all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization. Cox regression models adjusting for key baseline characteristics were used to assess the association between atorvastatin and MACE in patients undergoing PCI.ResultsFrom the overall trial population, 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI (650 women [24.0%]; mean [SD] age, 62 [11.3] years). Loading atorvastatin was associated with reduced MACE at 30 days by 28% in the PCI group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI 0.54-0.97; P = .03). Loading dose of atorvastatin was administered less than 12 hours before PCI in 2548 patients (95.3%) (45.1% < 2 hours and 54.3% between 2 and 12 hours). There was no significant interaction between treatment effect and timing of study drug administration. The treatment effect of loading atorvastatin was more pronounced in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than in patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92; P = .02; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.58-1.27; P = .43, respectively).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with ACS undergoing PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin appeared to reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days, most clearly in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This beneficial effect seemed to be preserved and consistent, irrespective of the timing of atorvastatin administration, including within 2 hours before PCI.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular obstruction affects one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and confers an adverse prognosis.ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine whether the efficacy and safety of a therapeutic strategy involving low-dose intracoronary alteplase infused early after coronary reperfusion associates with ischemic time.MethodsThis study was conducted in a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, 1:1:1 randomized, dose-ranging trial in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Ischemic time, defined as the time from symptom onset to coronary reperfusion, was a pre-specified subgroup of interest. Between March 17, 2016, and December 21, 2017, 440 patients, presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction within 6 h of symptom onset (<2 h, n = 107; ≥2 h but <4 h, n = 235; ≥4 h to 6 h, n = 98), were enrolled at 11 U.K. hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with placebo (n = 151), alteplase 10 mg (n = 144), or alteplase 20 mg (n = 145). The primary outcome was the amount of microvascular obstruction (MVO) (percentage of left ventricular mass) quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 2 to 7 days (available for 396 of 440).ResultsOverall, there was no association between alteplase dose and the extent of MVO (p for trend = 0.128). However, in patients with an ischemic time ≥4 to 6 h, alteplase increased the mean extent of MVO compared with placebo: 1.14% (placebo) versus 3.11% (10 mg) versus 5.20% (20 mg); p = 0.009 for the trend. The interaction between ischemic time and alteplase dose was statistically significant (p = 0.018).ConclusionIn patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and an ischemic time ≥4 to 6 h, adjunctive treatment with low-dose intracoronary alteplase during primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with increased MVO. Intracoronary alteplase may be harmful for this subgroup. (A Trial of Low-Dose Adjunctive Alteplase During Primary PCI [T-TIME]; NCT02257294).

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

Double-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Clopidogrel According to Smoking Status Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets