A retrospective study of the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel versus aspirin monotherapy one year after coronary stent implantation.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Kai Lan, Hailan Gao, Hui Gong
{"title":"A retrospective study of the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel versus aspirin monotherapy one year after coronary stent implantation.","authors":"Kai Lan, Hailan Gao, Hui Gong","doi":"10.1186/s40360-024-00796-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ideal single antiplatelet therapy for long-term maintenance after coronary stenting remains uncertain. In a head-to-head comparison, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of aspirin and clopidogrel as monotherapies in this patient cohort.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We reviewed 1044 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) at the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jinshan Hospital of Fudan University, between January 2019 and December 2021 and completed a 12-month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) treatment. They were divided into two groups: 582 were assigned to the aspirin group (100 mg/day) and 422 to the clopidogrel group (75 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the composite cardiac death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding type 3 or greater. Secondary endpoint events included all-cause death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding (defined as a BARC type ≥ 2 bleeding), and gastrointestinal complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a mean observation period of 25 ± 8.4 months, the primary endpoint event occurred in 29 (6.8%) patients in the clopidogrel group and 30 (5.1%) in the aspirin group, with no difference between the two groups (P = 0.253). In BARC type 2 or greater bleeding events, there were 9 (1.5%) in the aspirin group compared to 7 (1.7%) in the clopidogrel group, with no difference between the two groups (P = 0.160).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After 12-month DAPT in Chinese patients undergoing DES implantation, aspirin monotherapy versus clopidogrel monotherapy showed no significant difference between the two drugs in terms of safety and efficacy in terms of hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardiac death, and bleeding with BARC type 2 or greater.</p>","PeriodicalId":9023,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology","volume":"25 1","pages":"67"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428914/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40360-024-00796-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ideal single antiplatelet therapy for long-term maintenance after coronary stenting remains uncertain. In a head-to-head comparison, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of aspirin and clopidogrel as monotherapies in this patient cohort.

Method: We reviewed 1044 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) at the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Jinshan Hospital of Fudan University, between January 2019 and December 2021 and completed a 12-month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) treatment. They were divided into two groups: 582 were assigned to the aspirin group (100 mg/day) and 422 to the clopidogrel group (75 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the composite cardiac death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) bleeding type 3 or greater. Secondary endpoint events included all-cause death, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding (defined as a BARC type ≥ 2 bleeding), and gastrointestinal complications.

Results: After a mean observation period of 25 ± 8.4 months, the primary endpoint event occurred in 29 (6.8%) patients in the clopidogrel group and 30 (5.1%) in the aspirin group, with no difference between the two groups (P = 0.253). In BARC type 2 or greater bleeding events, there were 9 (1.5%) in the aspirin group compared to 7 (1.7%) in the clopidogrel group, with no difference between the two groups (P = 0.160).

Conclusion: After 12-month DAPT in Chinese patients undergoing DES implantation, aspirin monotherapy versus clopidogrel monotherapy showed no significant difference between the two drugs in terms of safety and efficacy in terms of hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardiac death, and bleeding with BARC type 2 or greater.

冠状动脉支架植入一年后氯吡格雷与阿司匹林单药治疗安全性和有效性的回顾性研究。
背景:冠状动脉支架术后长期维持理想的单一抗血小板疗法仍不确定。在一项头对头比较中,我们旨在评估阿司匹林和氯吡格雷作为单一疗法在该患者群中的疗效和安全性:方法:我们对2019年1月至2021年12月期间在复旦大学附属金山医院心血管内科接受药物洗脱支架(DES)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并完成12个月双联抗血小板疗法(DAPT)治疗的1044名患者进行了回顾性研究。他们被分为两组:582人被分配到阿司匹林组(100毫克/天),422人被分配到氯吡格雷组(75毫克/天)。主要终点是心源性死亡、缺血性中风、心肌梗死和出血学术研究联盟(BARC)3型或以上出血的综合结果。次要终点事件包括全因死亡、缺血性中风、心肌梗死、出血(定义为 BARC 类型≥ 2 的出血)和胃肠道并发症:平均观察期为 25 ± 8.4 个月后,氯吡格雷组有 29 例(6.8%)患者发生了主要终点事件,阿司匹林组有 30 例(5.1%)患者发生了主要终点事件,两组之间无差异(P = 0.253)。在BARC 2型或以上出血事件中,阿司匹林组有9例(1.5%),而氯吡格雷组有7例(1.7%),两组之间无差异(P = 0.160):阿司匹林单药治疗与氯吡格雷单药治疗相比,在出血、心肌梗死、缺血性卒中、心源性死亡和BARC 2型或以上出血方面的安全性和有效性无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology
BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACYTOXICOLOGY&nb-TOXICOLOGY
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of chemically defined therapeutic and toxic agents. The journal welcomes submissions from all fields of experimental and clinical pharmacology including clinical trials and toxicology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信