CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized study on simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: the Nordic bifurcation study Contemporary techniques in percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions Treatment of Very Small De Novo Coronary Artery Disease With 2.0 mm Drug-Coated Balloons Showed 1-Year Clinical Outcome Comparable With 2.0 mm Drug-Eluting Stents Adaptive development of concomitant secondary mitral and tricuspid regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement Influence of Local Myocardial Damage on Index of Microcirculatory Resistance and Fractional Flow Reserve in Target and Nontarget Vascular Territories in a Porcine Microvascular Injury Model Long-term efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): 3-year follow-up of a randomised, non-inferiority trial Optical Coherence Tomography–Defined Plaque Vulnerability in Relation to Functional Stenosis Severity and Microvascular Dysfunction Clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary dissection after paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty for small vessel coronary artery disease Drug-Coated Balloons: A Safe and Effective Alternative to Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Drug-Coated Balloon-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the Treatment of De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review
|<<... 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 ...>>|

Clinical Trial2018 Jan 30;71(4):371-381.

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

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

Motovska Z, Hlinomaz O, PRAGUE-18 Study Group et al. Keywords: myocardial infarction; outcome; prasugrel; primary percutaneous coronary intervention; switch; ticagrelor

ABSTRACT


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 P2Y12 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).

Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top