替格瑞洛与普拉格雷治疗急性冠脉综合征:现实世界的治疗和安全性。

Fadel Bahouth, Boris Chutko, Haitham Sholy, Sabreen Hassanain, Gassan Zaid, Evgeny Radzishevsky, Ibrahem Fahmwai, Mahmod Hamoud, Nemer Samnia, Johad Khoury, Idit Dobrecky-Mery
{"title":"替格瑞洛与普拉格雷治疗急性冠脉综合征:现实世界的治疗和安全性。","authors":"Fadel Bahouth, Boris Chutko, Haitham Sholy, Sabreen Hassanain, Gassan Zaid, Evgeny Radzishevsky, Ibrahem Fahmwai, Mahmod Hamoud, Nemer Samnia, Johad Khoury, Idit Dobrecky-Mery","doi":"10.3390/medicines12020013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> A direct head-to-head comparison between potent P2Y12 inhibitors: prasugrel versus ticagrelor is still lacking. <b>Purpose:</b> In this single-center study, we sought to address the efficacy and safety of these two third-generation antiplatelet drugs, after about a decade of practical use. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective observational study included all patients who were admitted with acute coronary syndrome between January 2010 and December 2019 and were discharged with aspirin and either prasugrel or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into two groups based on the dual antiplatelet drugs prescribed. Primary endpoint: A composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, recurrent coronary syndrome, or ischemic stroke at one year. Secondary endpoint: Significant bleeding according to the BARC classification (types 3, 4, or 5). <b>Results:</b> During this period, 746 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was reached in 70 patients (9.4%): 24 patients (8.0%) in the group treated with ticagrelor and 46 patients (10.3%) in the group treated with prasugrel (<i>p</i>-value = 0.303). In terms of safety events, significant bleeding was not statistically different between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups: 13 (2.9%) vs. 9 (3%), respectively (<i>p</i>-value = 0.9). More patients discontinued their treatment before the end of the year among those treated with ticagrelor compared to those treated with prasugrel. [16.7% vs. 9.6%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.003). <b>Conclusions:</b> There was no significant difference in the occurrence of recurrent cardiac events, stroke, or cardiovascular death, nor significant bleeding among ACS patients treated either with prasugrel or ticagrelor<b>.</b></p>","PeriodicalId":74162,"journal":{"name":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Real-World Treatment and Safety.\",\"authors\":\"Fadel Bahouth, Boris Chutko, Haitham Sholy, Sabreen Hassanain, Gassan Zaid, Evgeny Radzishevsky, Ibrahem Fahmwai, Mahmod Hamoud, Nemer Samnia, Johad Khoury, Idit Dobrecky-Mery\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/medicines12020013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> A direct head-to-head comparison between potent P2Y12 inhibitors: prasugrel versus ticagrelor is still lacking. <b>Purpose:</b> In this single-center study, we sought to address the efficacy and safety of these two third-generation antiplatelet drugs, after about a decade of practical use. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective observational study included all patients who were admitted with acute coronary syndrome between January 2010 and December 2019 and were discharged with aspirin and either prasugrel or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into two groups based on the dual antiplatelet drugs prescribed. Primary endpoint: A composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, recurrent coronary syndrome, or ischemic stroke at one year. Secondary endpoint: Significant bleeding according to the BARC classification (types 3, 4, or 5). <b>Results:</b> During this period, 746 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was reached in 70 patients (9.4%): 24 patients (8.0%) in the group treated with ticagrelor and 46 patients (10.3%) in the group treated with prasugrel (<i>p</i>-value = 0.303). In terms of safety events, significant bleeding was not statistically different between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups: 13 (2.9%) vs. 9 (3%), respectively (<i>p</i>-value = 0.9). More patients discontinued their treatment before the end of the year among those treated with ticagrelor compared to those treated with prasugrel. [16.7% vs. 9.6%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.003). <b>Conclusions:</b> There was no significant difference in the occurrence of recurrent cardiac events, stroke, or cardiovascular death, nor significant bleeding among ACS patients treated either with prasugrel or ticagrelor<b>.</b></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines12020013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicines (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines12020013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有效的P2Y12抑制剂:普拉格雷和替格瑞之间的直接正面比较仍然缺乏。目的:在这项单中心研究中,我们试图解决这两种第三代抗血小板药物的有效性和安全性,经过大约十年的实际使用。方法:回顾性观察研究纳入了2010年1月至2019年12月期间入院的所有急性冠状动脉综合征患者,这些患者在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后服用阿司匹林和普拉格雷或替格瑞。根据患者使用的双抗血小板药物分为两组。主要终点:一年内心血管死亡、复发性冠状动脉综合征或缺血性中风的复合终点。次要终点:根据BARC分类(3、4或5型)出现明显出血。结果:在此期间,746例患者符合纳入标准。70例患者(9.4%)达到主要终点:替格瑞洛组24例(8.0%),普拉格雷组46例(10.3%)(p值= 0.303)。在安全性事件方面,替格瑞洛组和普拉格雷组之间的显著出血无统计学差异:分别为13例(2.9%)和9例(3%)(p值= 0.9)。与接受普拉格雷治疗的患者相比,接受替格瑞洛治疗的患者在年底前停止治疗的患者更多。[16.7% vs. 9.6%, p值= 0.003]。结论:在接受普拉格雷或替格瑞洛治疗的ACS患者中,复发性心脏事件、卒中或心血管死亡的发生率没有显著差异,也没有显著出血。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Real-World Treatment and Safety.

Introduction: A direct head-to-head comparison between potent P2Y12 inhibitors: prasugrel versus ticagrelor is still lacking. Purpose: In this single-center study, we sought to address the efficacy and safety of these two third-generation antiplatelet drugs, after about a decade of practical use. Methods: A retrospective observational study included all patients who were admitted with acute coronary syndrome between January 2010 and December 2019 and were discharged with aspirin and either prasugrel or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into two groups based on the dual antiplatelet drugs prescribed. Primary endpoint: A composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, recurrent coronary syndrome, or ischemic stroke at one year. Secondary endpoint: Significant bleeding according to the BARC classification (types 3, 4, or 5). Results: During this period, 746 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was reached in 70 patients (9.4%): 24 patients (8.0%) in the group treated with ticagrelor and 46 patients (10.3%) in the group treated with prasugrel (p-value = 0.303). In terms of safety events, significant bleeding was not statistically different between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups: 13 (2.9%) vs. 9 (3%), respectively (p-value = 0.9). More patients discontinued their treatment before the end of the year among those treated with ticagrelor compared to those treated with prasugrel. [16.7% vs. 9.6%, p-value = 0.003). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the occurrence of recurrent cardiac events, stroke, or cardiovascular death, nor significant bleeding among ACS patients treated either with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 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