Clinical outcomes with the use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction – A prospective observational study

Q4 Medicine
Bibek Agarwal, S. Vijay, Amresh Singh, Ashish Jha, B. Tiwari, Naveen Jamwal
{"title":"Clinical outcomes with the use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction – A prospective observational study","authors":"Bibek Agarwal, S. Vijay, Amresh Singh, Ashish Jha, B. Tiwari, Naveen Jamwal","doi":"10.4103/heartindia.heartindia_50_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Thrombolytic therapy in the appropriate window period remains the most commonly used therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, despite the advantage of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over it. Use of newer more potent antiplatelets agents early after thrombolysis carries the chance of increasing bleeding complications, thus we planned to have a study to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor as compared to clopidogrel in thrombolysed patients. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective observational study in Indian patients. A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study with 76 in the ticagrelor group and 66 in the clopidogrel group. All patients received thrombolysis as the primary reperfusion strategy. Patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor after thrombolysis irrespective of the subsequent PCI status were followed up for any bleeding events (primary endpoints) as per thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) definition and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were also assessed as markers of efficacy and secondary endpoints. Results: Mean time from thrombolysis to study drug use was 18.9 ± 2.1 h in the ticagrelor group as compared to 14.8 ± 3.3 h in the clopidogrel group (P > 0.05). For major bleeding events (TIMI major), no statistically significant difference was observed between groups (2.6% in ticagrelor vs. 1.5% in clopidogrel) (P = 0.6). BARC 3–5 bleeding at 1-month follow-up was significantly higher in the ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). At 1-month follow-up, BARC 1–2 or 3–5 bleeding events in the subjects who underwent PCI were higher in the ticagrelor group than the clopidogrel group (P = 0.03). Patients in the clopidogrel group have more major adverse cardiac events than the ticagrelor group especially driven by more fatal and nonfatal MI in the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). Conclusions: Ticagrelor can be safely administered in postthrombolytic patients similar to clopidogrel albeit at the cost of slightly increased minor bleeding events in short-term follow-up.","PeriodicalId":32147,"journal":{"name":"Heart India","volume":"10 1","pages":"152 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/heartindia.heartindia_50_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Thrombolytic therapy in the appropriate window period remains the most commonly used therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, despite the advantage of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over it. Use of newer more potent antiplatelets agents early after thrombolysis carries the chance of increasing bleeding complications, thus we planned to have a study to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor as compared to clopidogrel in thrombolysed patients. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective observational study in Indian patients. A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study with 76 in the ticagrelor group and 66 in the clopidogrel group. All patients received thrombolysis as the primary reperfusion strategy. Patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor after thrombolysis irrespective of the subsequent PCI status were followed up for any bleeding events (primary endpoints) as per thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) definition and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were also assessed as markers of efficacy and secondary endpoints. Results: Mean time from thrombolysis to study drug use was 18.9 ± 2.1 h in the ticagrelor group as compared to 14.8 ± 3.3 h in the clopidogrel group (P > 0.05). For major bleeding events (TIMI major), no statistically significant difference was observed between groups (2.6% in ticagrelor vs. 1.5% in clopidogrel) (P = 0.6). BARC 3–5 bleeding at 1-month follow-up was significantly higher in the ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). At 1-month follow-up, BARC 1–2 or 3–5 bleeding events in the subjects who underwent PCI were higher in the ticagrelor group than the clopidogrel group (P = 0.03). Patients in the clopidogrel group have more major adverse cardiac events than the ticagrelor group especially driven by more fatal and nonfatal MI in the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). Conclusions: Ticagrelor can be safely administered in postthrombolytic patients similar to clopidogrel albeit at the cost of slightly increased minor bleeding events in short-term follow-up.
st段抬高型心肌梗死患者纤溶治疗后使用替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷的临床结果——一项前瞻性观察研究
背景:在适当的窗口期溶栓治疗仍然是st段抬高型心肌梗死患者最常用的治疗方法,尽管初步经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)优于它。溶栓后早期使用新的更有效的抗血小板药物有可能增加出血并发症,因此我们计划进行一项研究来评估替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在溶栓患者中的安全性和有效性。材料和方法:这是一项针对印度患者的前瞻性观察性研究。共有142例患者入组,其中替格瑞洛组76例,氯吡格雷组66例。所有患者均采用溶栓作为主要的再灌注策略。根据心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)定义和出血学术研究联盟(BARC)定义,对溶栓后接受氯吡格雷或替格瑞洛治疗的患者进行随访,观察出血事件(主要终点)。主要心脏不良事件(MACE)包括心血管原因死亡、心肌梗死(MI)和卒中也被评估为疗效和次要终点的标志。结果:替格瑞洛组溶栓至研究用药的平均时间为18.9±2.1 h,氯吡格雷组为14.8±3.3 h (P < 0.05)。对于大出血事件(TIMI major),两组间无统计学差异(替格瑞洛组为2.6%,氯吡格雷组为1.5%)(P = 0.6)。随访1个月,替格瑞洛组BARC 3-5出血明显高于氯吡格雷组(P = 0.04)。随访1个月,替格瑞洛组PCI患者BARC 1-2或3-5出血事件高于氯吡格雷组(P = 0.03)。与替格瑞洛组相比,氯吡格雷组患者的主要心脏不良事件发生率更高,尤其是由致死性和非致死性心肌梗死引起的发生率更高(P = 0.04)。结论:与氯吡格雷类似,替格瑞洛可以安全地用于溶栓后患者,尽管其代价是短期随访中轻微出血事件略有增加。
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
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
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