Search

Objective: The comparative efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear. We aimed to investigate the association of treatment with clinical outcomes., Methods: In the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies) registry, all patients with MI treated with PCI and discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor from 2010 to 2016 were included. Outcomes were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, death, MI or stroke), individual components and bleeding. Multivariable adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to adjust for confounders., Results: We included 37 990 patients, 2073 in the prasugrel group and 35 917 in the ticagrelor group. Patients in the prasugrel group were younger, more often admitted with ST elevation MI and more likely to have diabetes. Six to twelve months after discharge, 20% of patients in each group discontinued the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor they received at discharge. The risk for MACCE did not significantly differ between prasugrel-treated and ticagrelor-treated patients (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24). We found no significant difference in the adjusted risk for death, recurrent MI or stroke alone between the two treatments. There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding with prasugrel versus ticagrelor (2.5% vs 3.2%, adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22). IPTW and PSM analyses confirmed the results., Conclusion: In patients with MI treated with PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar efficacy and safety during 1-year follow-up., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DV reports a grant from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. DE reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer and serves in the advisor board for Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. EH reports grants and honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Bayer and NovoNordisk, outside the submitted work. LM reports consulting fees/lecture from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Novartis, NovoNordisk, MSD, Sanofi and Amgen, outside the submitted work. EO reports institutional research grant from AstraZeneca and consulting fees from Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca and Bayer, outside the submitted work. TJ reports research grants from MSD and Novartis, outside the submitted work. JA reports grants and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, and serving on advisory board for AstraZeneca, Novartis and MSD, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: There is a paucity of data regarding prognosis in patients with acute versus chronic myocardial injury for long-term outcomes. We hypothesised that patients with chronic myocardial injury have a similar long-term prognosis as patients with acute myocardial injury., Methods: In an observational cohort study of 22 589 patients who had high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measured in the emergency department during 2011-2014, we identified all patients with level >14 ng/L and categorised them as acute myocardial injury, type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI), type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI) or chronic myocardial injury through adjudication. We estimated adjusted HRs with 95% CIs for the primary outcome all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes MI, and heart failure in patients with acute myocardial injury, T1MI and T2MI compared with chronic myocardial injury., Results: In total, 3853 patients were included. During 3.9 (±2) years of follow-up, 48%, 24%, 44% and 49% of patients with acute myocardial injury, T1MI, T2MI and chronic myocardial injury died, respectively. Patients with acute myocardial injury had higher adjusted risks of death (1.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36) and heart failure (1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.43), but a similar risk for myocardial infarction (MI) compared with the reference group. Patients with T1MI had a lower adjusted risk of death (0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00) and higher risk of MI (2.09, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.68), but a similar risk of heart failure. Patients with T2MI had a higher adjusted risk of death (1.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.80) and heart failure (1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.69) compared with patients with chronic myocardial injury., Conclusions: Absolute long-term risks for death are similar, and adjusted risks are slightly higher, among patients with acute myocardial injury and T2MI, respectively, compared with chronic myocardial injury. The lowest risk of long-term mortality was found in patients with T1MI. Both acute and chronic myocardial injury are associated with very high risks of adverse outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJH received consultancy honoraria from Actelion, Idorsia and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)