CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Negative Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Events in the Elderly Considerations for Optimal Device Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review 3-Year Outcomes of the ULTIMATE Trial Comparing Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Five-Year Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement Early Rhythm-Control Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Long-term results after PCI of unprotected distal left main coronary artery stenosis: the Bifurcations Bad Krozingen (BBK)-Left Main Registry Why NOBLE and EXCEL Are Consistent With Each Other and With Previous Trials Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance as a complementary method to Transthoracic Echocardiography for Aortic Valve Area Estimation in patients with Aortic Stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis Echocardiographic Screening for Pulmonary Hypertension in Congenital Heart Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week Why and How to Measure Aortic Valve Calcification in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Clinical Trial2007 Nov 15;357(20):2001-15.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Keywords: prasugre; clopidogrel; acute coronary syndromes; outcome

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine is a cornerstone of treatment to prevent thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS - To compare prasugrel, a new thienopyridine, with clopidogrel, we randomly assigned 13,608 patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention to receive prasugrel (a 60-mg loading dose and a 10-mg daily maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (a 300-mg loading dose and a 75-mg daily maintenance dose), for 6 to 15 months. The primary efficacy end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The key safety end point was major bleeding.

RESULTS - The primary efficacy end point occurred in 12.1% of patients receiving clopidogrel and 9.9% of patients receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.90; P<0.001). We also found significant reductions in the prasugrel group in the rates of myocardial infarction (9.7% for clopidogrel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 1.1%; P<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 2.4% of patients receiving prasugrel and in 1.8% of patients receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.68; P=0.03). Also greater in the prasugrel group was the rate of life-threatening bleeding (1.4% vs. 0.9%; P=0.01), including nonfatal bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 1.25; P=0.23) and fatal bleeding (0.4% vs. 0.1%; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly reduced rates of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, but with an increased risk of major bleeding, including fatal bleeding. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097591 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.