Search

Background: Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods: In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization.Results: The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95-1.82]; P=0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P=0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P=0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P=0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80-1.87]; P=0.36).Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to investigate the impact of oral anticoagulation (OAC) type on clinical outcomes 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are superior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), while their comparative performance among patients in need of OAC undergoing TAVR is underinvestigated., Methods: The study enrolled 962 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR in 4 tertiary European centers and were discharged on either NOACs (n = 326) or VKAs (n = 636). By using propensity scores for inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), the comparison of treatment groups was adjusted to correct for potential confounding., Results: Mean age and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of the population were 81.3 ± 6.3 years and 4.5% (interquartile range: 3.0% to 7.3%); 52.5% were women and a balloon-expandable valve was used in 62.7% of cases. The primary outcome of interest, combined incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any cerebrovascular event at 1-year after TAVR, was 21.2% with NOACs versus 15.0% with VKAs (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00 to 2.07; p = 0.050, IPTW-adjusted). The 1-year incidence of any Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeds and all-cause mortality were comparable between the NOAC and VKA groups, 33.9% versus 34.1% (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.26; p = 0.838, IPTW-adjusted) and 16.5% versus 12.2% (HR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90 to 2.06; p = 0.136, IPTW-adjusted), respectively., Conclusions: Chronic use of both NOACs and VKAs among patients in need of OAC after TAVR are comparable regarding 1-year bleeding risk. The higher ischemic event rate observed with NOACs needs to be evaluated in large randomized trials., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)