Back to Search Start Over

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors :
Coughlan, J. J.
Aytekin, Alp
Ndrepepa, Gjin
Schüpke, Stefanie
Bernlochner, Isabell
Mayer, Katharina
Neumann, Franz Josef
Menichelli, Maurizio
Richardt, Gert
Wöhrle, Jochen
Witzenbichler, Bernhard
Gewalt, Senta
Xhepa, Erion
Kufner, Sebastian
Sager, Hendrik B.
Joner, Michael
Ibrahim, Tareq
Fusaro, Massimiliano
Ludwig Laugwitz, Karl
Schunkert, Heribert
Source :
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions; Jul2021, Vol. 14 Issue 7, p688-697, 10p
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been defined. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included all patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment). Complex PCI was defined as at least one of the following: multivessel PCI, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, and total stented length >60 mm. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among the 3377 patients treated with PCI in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, 1429 underwent complex PCI (ticagrelor, N=696 and prasugrel, N=733) and 1948 underwent noncomplex PCI (ticagrelor, N=980 and prasugrel, N=968). There was no interaction between PCI complexity, assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel, and the primary efficacy or safety end points (P for interaction: ≥0.13). In the complex PCI group, the primary efficacy end point (11.0% versus 9.2%, hazard ratio: 1.19 [0.85-1.66], P=0.303) and the safety end point (5.2% versus 6.1%, hazard ratio: 0.83 [0.53-1.31], P=0.419) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the noncomplex PCI group, the primary efficacy end point occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (8.9% versus 5.5%, hazard ratio: 1.66 [1.18-2.34], P=0.004) without significant difference in terms of the safety end point (5.4% versus 4.1%, hazard ratio: 1.41 [0.92-2.17], P=0.110). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome, PCI complexity does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel. The observed comparable performance of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex PCI requires further confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
19417640
Volume :
14
Issue :
7
Database :
Supplemental Index
Journal :
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
152030474
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010565