Dataset Information

Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

We aimed to compare the outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention treated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor.

Methods

Among 7,233 patients enrolled to the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) between 2010 and 2018, we identified 1,126 eligible patients treated with prasugrel and 817 with ticagrelor. Comparison between the groups was performed separately in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, propensity score matched (PSM) STEMI patients, and non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) patients.

Results

In-hospital complication rates, including rates of stent thrombosis, were not significantly different between groups. In PSM STEMI patients, 30-day re-hospitalization rate (p < 0.05), 30-day MACE (the composite of death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization, p = 0.006), and 1-year mortality rates (p = 0.08) were higher in the ticagrelor group compared to the prasugrel group; in NSTE-ACS patients, outcomes were not associated with drug choice. In Cox regression analysis applied on the entire cohort, prasugrel was associated with lower 1-year mortality in STEMI patients but not in NSTE-ACS patients (p for interaction 0.03).

Conclusions

Compared to ticagrelor, prasugrel was associated with superior clinical outcomes in STEMI patients, but not in NSTE-ACS patients.

SUBMITTER: Eliaz R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9153328 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey.

Eliaz Ran R Mengesha Bethlehem B Ovdat Tal T Iakobishvili Zaza Z Hasdai David D Kheifets Mark M Klempfner Robert R Beigel Roy R Kalmanovich Eran E Alcalai Ronny R Levi Amos A

Cardiology 20211122 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>We aimed to compare the outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention treated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor.<h4>Methods</h4>Among 7,233 patients enrolled to the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) between 2010 and 2018, we identified 1,126 eligible patients treated with prasugrel and 817 with ticagrelor. Comparison between the groups was performed separately in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (ST ...[more]

PMID: 34808635

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:The 30-day clinical outcomes with prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared using a US payer database in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Prasugrel and ticagrelor demonstrated superior efficacy with increased non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding compared with clopidogrel in randomized clinical trials. No direct randomized or observational studies have compared clinical outcomes between prasugrel and ticagrelor.Patients hospitalized for ACS-PCI between August 1, 2011 and April 30, 2013 and prescribed prasugrel or ticagrelor were selected. Drug treatment cohorts were propensity matched based upon demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary objective compared 30-day net adverse clinical events (NACE) in prasugrel- and ticagrelor-treated patients using a prespecified 20% noninferiority margin. Secondary objectives included comparisons of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding.Data were available for 16,098 patients (prasugrel, n?=?13,134; ticagrelor, n?=?2,964). In unmatched cohorts, prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbidities than ticagrelor-treated patients, and 30-day NACE rates were 5.6 and 9.3%, respectively (P?<?0.001). Following propensity matching, NACE was noninferior (P?<?0.001) and 22% lower in prasugrel-treated than in ticagrelor-treated patients (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94). A 30-day adjusted MACE (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) and major bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95) were also lower in prasugrel-treated patients compared with ticagrelor-treated patients.In this "real-world," retrospective, observational study, physicians appear to preferentially use prasugrel in younger patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities compared with ticagrelor. Following adjustment, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel use appear as good, if not better, than those associated with ticagrelor in ACS-PCI patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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:ImportanceIt is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI.Design, setting, and participantsA prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding.ResultsThe ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

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

Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets