1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor

Varování

Publikace nespadá pod Fakultu sportovních studií, ale pod Lékařskou fakultu. Oficiální stránka publikace je na webu muni.cz.
Autoři

MOTOVSKA Zuzana HLINOMAZ Ota KALA Petr HROMADKA Milan KNOT Jiri VARVAROVSKY Ivo DUSEK Jaroslav JARKOVSKÝ Jiří MIKLÍK Roman ROKYTA Richard TOUSEK Frantisek KRAMÁRIKOVÁ Petra SVOBODA Michal MAJTAN Bohumil SIMEK Stanislav BRANNY Marian MROZEK Jan CERVINKA Pavel OSTRANSKY Jiri WIDIMSKY Petr

Rok publikování 2018
Druh Článek v odborném periodiku
Časopis / Zdroj Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Fakulta / Pracoviště MU

Lékařská fakulta

Citace
www http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.008
Doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.008
Klíčová slova myocardial infarction; outcome; prasugrel; primary percutaneous coronary intervention; switch; ticagrelor
Popis BACKGROUND Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study did not find any significant differences between 2 potent P2Y(12) inhibitors. OBJECTIVES The 1-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on: 1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel. METHODS A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at 1 year. Because patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel. RESULTS The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence interval: 0.742 to 1.835; p = 0.503). No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.999), and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (n = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003). Patients who were economically motivated to switch to clopidogrel had (compared with patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events; however, they also had lower ischemic risk. CONCLUSIONS Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRAGUE-18]; NCT02808767) (c) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Související projekty:

Používáte starou verzi internetového prohlížeče. Doporučujeme aktualizovat Váš prohlížeč na nejnovější verzi.

Další info