CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Drug-eluting balloons in coronary interventions: the quiet revolution? Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients 2016 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update on New Pharmacological Therapy for Heart Failure: An Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Hs-cTroponins for the prediction of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with established CHD - A comparative analysis from the KAROLA study Routinely reported ejection fraction and mortality in clinical practice: where does the nadir of risk lie? Novel functions of macrophages in the heart: insights into electrical conduction, stress, and diastolic dysfunction Dynamic atrioventricular delay programming improves ventricular electrical synchronization as evaluated by 3D vectorcardiography Post-Stroke Cardiovascular Complications and Neurogenic Cardiac Injury: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Feasibility Study Association of Body Mass Index With Lifetime Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Compression of Morbidity

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.