CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 Novel functions of macrophages in the heart: insights into electrical conduction, stress, and diastolic dysfunction Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation Randomized Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Large-Bore Access for Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Application of High-Sensitivity Troponin in Suspected Myocardial Infarction Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications: Algorithms From the 2018 and 2019 Seattle Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications Conference European Bifurcation Club White Paper on Stenting Techniques for Patients With Bifurcated Coronary Artery Lesions Mechanisms and diagnostic evaluation of persistent or recurrent angina following percutaneous coronary revascularization Hemodynamic Response to Nitroprusside in Patients With Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Stenosis and Preserved Ejection Fraction

Clinical Trial2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908973.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Schüpke S, Neumann FJ, ISAR-REACT 5 Trial Investigators. Keywords: ticagrelor vs prasugrel; ACS

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain.


METHODS - In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding.


RESULTS - A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary-end point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46).


CONCLUSIONS - Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

 

Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.