Search

AIMS: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI) have not been established.METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a nationwide cohort study of patients on OAC for AF who underwent PCI for MI from 2011 through 2019 and were prescribed a P2Y 12 inhibitor at discharge. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat revascularization. The primary safety outcome was cerebral, gastrointestinal, or urogenital bleeding requiring hospitalization. Absolute and relative risks for outcomes at 1 year were calculated through multivariable logistic regression with average treatment effect modelling. Outcomes were standardized for the individual components of the CHA 2DS 2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as type of OAC, aspirin, and proton pump inhibitor use. We included 2259 patients of whom 1918 (84.9%) were prescribed clopidogrel and 341 (15.1%) ticagrelor or prasugrel. The standardized risk of MACE was significantly lower in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group compared with the clopidogrel group (standardized absolute risk, 16.3% vs. 19.4%; relative risk, 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98; P = 0.02), while the risk of bleeding did not differ (standardized absolute risk, 5.5% vs. 5.1%; relative risk, 1.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.41; P = 0.69). CONCLUSION: In patients with AF on OAC who underwent PCI for MI, treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel was associated with reduced ischaemic risk, without a concomitantly increased bleeding risk.

Aims To compare the effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Nationwide, registry-based study of STEMI patients treated with primary PCI (2011-17) and subsequently with aspirin and a P2Y(12) inhibitor. The effectiveness outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, or cardiovascular death at 12 months. The safety outcome was bleeding requiring hospitalization at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression with average treatment effect modeling was used to calculate absolute and relative risks for outcomes standardized to the distributions of demographic characteristics of all included subjects. We included 10 832 patients; 1 697 were treated with clopidogrel, 7 508 with ticagrelor, and 1,627 with prasugrel. Median ages were 66, 63, and 59 years (P < 0.001). Standardized relative risks of MACE were 0.75 for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.83), 0.84 for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (95% CI, 0.73-0.94), and 1.12 for prasugrel vs. ticagrelor (95% CI, 1.00-1.24). Standardized relative risks of bleeding were 0.77 for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (95% CI, 0.59-0.93), 0.89 for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (95% CI, 0.64-1.15), and 1.17 for prasugrel vs. ticagrelor (95% CI, 0.89-1.45). Conclusion Ticagrelor and prasugrel were associated with lower risks of MACE after STEMI than clopidogrel, and ticagrelor was associated with a marginal reduction compared with prasugrel. The risk of bleeding was lower with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel, but did not significantly differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel.