CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Criteria for Iron Deficiency in Patients With Heart Failure Long-term outcome of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Clinical Phenogroups in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Detailed Phenotypes, Prognosis, and Response to Spironolactone Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week Proteomics to Improve Phenotyping in Obese Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Usefulness of intravascular ultrasound to predict outcomes in short-length lesions treated with drug-eluting stents 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

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.