Dataset Information

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the management of acute myocardial infarction.

ABSTRACT: Hypothesis: In the care of acute myocardial infarction, ticagrelor attenuates post-ischemic myocardial damage and inhibits platelet activity to a greater extent than clopidogrel. Methods: Scholarly articles published in the last 10 years were compiled from a PubMed MeSH search focusing on acute coronary infarction and the antiplatelet therapies clopidogrel and ticagrelor. The databases used were PubMed, Google Scholar, Dynamed, and EBSCOhost. Eight articles were chosen based on subject matter related to the hypothesis, including cardioprotective effects, mortality benefits, platelet reactivity, angiographic effects, and electrocardiography changes. Results: Evidence from randomized clinical trials demonstrates that ticagrelor reduces infarct size, prevents remodeling, and reduces mortality rate after acute myocardial infarction to a greater extent than clopidogrel. However, some angiography studies show no difference between the two treatment regimes. Two articles show that ticagrelor is more effective in treating individuals with high platelet reactivity (HPR). In addition, there is some evidence of increased dyspnea and significant bleeding with ticagrelor. Discussion: Although there is growing evidence that ticagrelor is the better antiplatelet drug post-acute coronary infarction, more research needs to be done to determine the situations in which ticagrelor provides the optimal treatment regime in regards to cardioprotective effects, antiplatelet effects and an overall decrease in mortality. Conclusion: Ticagrelor was found to be superior to clopidogrel in relation to cardioprotective effects, mortality, and antiplatelet activity.

SUBMITTER: Volney C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6737723 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the management of acute myocardial infarction.

Volney Candice C Collins Anthony A Adams Sarah S

Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives 20190905 4

<b>Hypothesis</b>: In the care of acute myocardial infarction, ticagrelor attenuates post-ischemic myocardial damage and inhibits platelet activity to a greater extent than clopidogrel. <b>Methods</b>: Scholarly articles published in the last 10 years were compiled from a PubMed MeSH search focusing on acute coronary infarction and the antiplatelet therapies clopidogrel and ticagrelor. The databases used were PubMed, Google Scholar, Dynamed, and EBSCOhost. Eight articles were chosen based on sub ...[more]

PMID: 31531213

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundData are lacking on the effects of the alternation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (P2Y12) on bleeding and outcome in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) with cardiogenic shock (CS). We compared the effects of different P2Y12 and alternation of P2Y12 (combination) on bleeding and outcome in patients with MI and CS.MethodsData from 247 patients divided into four groups: clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel, and the combination group, were analyzed. The association between P2Y12 and bleeding as well as 30-day and one-year mortality was examined.ResultsThe highest bleeding rate was observed in patients in the combination group, followed by the clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel groups [12(50%) patients, 22(28.2%), 21(18.3%) and 4(13.3%), respectively; p = 0.003]. Bleeding occurred with a similar frequency in the combination and clopidogrel groups (p = 0.081), but more frequently than in the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006, respectively). Bleeding rates were similar in patients receiving P2Y12 alone (p = 0.13). Compared to clopidogrel, both ticagrelor and prasugrel had a lower bleeding risk (aOR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18-0.92; p = 0.032 and aOR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.05-0.85; p = 0.029, respectively) and the combination had a similar bleeding risk (aOR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.71-7.48; p = 0.16). The ticagrelor and prasugrel groups had more than an 80% and 90% lower bleeding risk than the combination group (aOR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.06-0.55; p = 0.003 and aOR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02-0.44; p = 0.003, respectively). The unadjusted 30-day and one-year mortality were highest in the clopidogrel group, followed by the ticagrelor, prasugrel, and combination groups (44(56.4%) and 55(70.5%) patients died in the clopidogrel group, 53(46.1%) and 56(48.7%) in the ticagrelor group, 12(40%) and 14(46.7%) patients died in the prasugrel, and 6(25%) and 9(37.5%) patients died in the combination group; p = 0.045 and p < 0.0001. After adjustment for confounders, the P2Y12 groups were not independently associated with either 30-day (p = 0.23) or one-year (p = 0.17) mortality risk.ConclusionOur results suggest that the choice of P2Y12 was not associated with treatment outcome. The combination of P2Y12 increased bleeding risk compared with ticagrelor and prasugrel and was comparable to clopidogrel in patients with MI and CS. However, these higher bleeding rates did not result in worse treatment outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundEuropean guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population.MethodsTo compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y12 inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study.ResultsOf the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14-36] vs 27 [18-38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 92% vs 81 %; p = 0.002) and primary PCI ≤ 12 h (82% vs 66%; p = 0.001). The patients in the ticagrelor group had a higher procedural success rate (100% vs. 96%; p = 0.044). There was no difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and in unadjusted incidence of hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) but there was a significant reduction in unadjusted cardiac hospital death in the ticagrelor group (0.7% vs 5.4%; p = 0.024). After correcting for propensity score, hospital death (p = 0.22) and hospital MACE (p = 0.96) did not differ in both groups. The unadjusted survival at 1 year after STEMI was higher in the ticagrelor group (97.8% vs 87.8%; p = 0.024), and this result was confirmed by propensity score analysis (hazard ratio = 0.29 [0.08-0.99]; p = 0.048).ConclusionsIn this real-word propensity score analysis, ticagrelor did not affect the risk of MACE during the hospital phase, or the incidence of hospital bleeding in patients with STEMI. However, in this mono-centric experience, ticagrelor resulted in improved 1-year survival, even after correction by propensity score.

Project description:ObjectivesThe primary aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using ticagrelor (T-DAPT) versus clopidogrel (C-DAPT) in a real-world ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 655 consecutive patients having primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia (from January 2013 to April 2016). Medical and procedural therapies were at clinician discretion. Patient data were retrieved from hospital records and primary clinicians.ResultsT-DAPT (65%) was used more frequently, and in patients with lower mean CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) score, than C-DAPT (24.6 vs. 32.2; p < 0.0001, respectively). All-cause mortality was 9.0% at 2.7 years follow-up, with fewer deaths for T-DAPT (4.5% vs. 17.2%; p < 0.0001). T-DAPT incurred less BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) 3-5 major bleeding (5.0% vs. 12.4%; p < 0.0001). Multivariate regression showed that C-DAPT, GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Cardiac Events) score, and renal insufficiency were independently associated with mortality. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and GRACE score independently predicted BARC 3-5 bleeding. Early DAPT discontinuation (1.7%) and ticagrelor intolerance (7.6%) was rare. Switching DAPT regimen was infrequent (21.7%) and mostly attributed to clinician preference (73.2%). Independent determinants of C-DAPT selection were older age, diabetes, prior PCI, IABP, and higher CRUSADE score.ConclusionTicagrelor was preferred in low bleeding risk patients, which may have contributed to less BARC 3-5 bleeding and lower mortality for T-DAPT. Thus, bleeding mitigation is a clinical priority when selecting DAPT for PCI-treated STEMI patients. Continuation of initial DAPT regimen was typical, but early switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor shows willingness to optimize DAPT. Patients with very low CRUSADE scores (<21.5) may be appropriate for switching to a potent P2Y12 inhibitor.

Dataset Information

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the management of acute myocardial infarction.

Publications

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the management of acute myocardial infarction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets