Comparison Of Ticagrelor Research Articles

Comparison of Ticagrelor with Clopidogrel on Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Following Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Angiography-Derived Index of Microcirculatory Resistance.

This research aimed to assess the impact of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) and prognosis following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), using the angiography-derived index of microcirculatory resistance (angio-IMR) as a non-invasive assessment tool. In this retrospective study, angio-IMR was performed to evaluate CMD before and after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with either ticagrelor (90mg twice daily, n = 184) or clopidogrel (75mg once daily, n = 72). The primary endpoint is the improvement of CMD evaluated by angio-IMR (delta angio-IMR) following DAPT. Secondary endpoints included myocardial reinfarction and readmission for heart failure during 2-year follow-up. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor exhibited a significantly higher delta angio-IMR [- 3.09 (5.14) versus - 1.99 (1.91), P = 0.008], indicating a superior improvement of CMD with ticagrelor treatment. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that ticagrelor treatment was related to a reduced risk of readmission for heart failure [8 (4.3) versus 9 (12.5), adjusted HR = 0.329; 95% CI = 0.116-0.934; P = 0.018] and myocardial reinfarction [7 (3.8) versus 8 (11.1), adjusted HR = 0.349; 95% CI = 0.125-0.975; P = 0.026]. Furthermore, ticagrelor treatment serves as an independent predictor of readmission for heart failure (HR = 0.322; 95% CI = 0.110-0.943; P = 0.039). The results of this study indicate a potential association between ticagrelor treatment and improved CMD, as well as a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, including myocardial reinfarction and readmission for heart failure in AMI patients. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm the potential benefits of ticagrelor on CMD and cardiovascular prognosis. This clinical trial was registered in www. gov (NCT05978726).

Comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in anemic patients with acute coronary syndrome: efficacy and safety outcomes over one year.

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the potential impact of ticagrelor and clopidogrel treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with anemia and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to provide insights into the optimal therapeutic approach for this vulnerable patient population. A retrospective research design was employed, involving patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) between 2014 and 2021. Inclusion criteria required a hemoglobin level below 12mg/dL and a minimum 12-month P2Y12 inhibitor treatment. Comprehensive clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic data were collected from the hospital's electronic repository. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), encompassing total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke. Major hemorrhage was the primary safety endpoint. Secondary outcomes included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke, individually. Patients treated with ticagrelor (n = 118) and clopidogrel (n = 538) were compared. No significant difference was observed in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding between ticagrelor and clopidogrel treatment groups (MACE: clopidogrel 10.0% vs. ticagrelor 11.0%, p = 0.75; major bleeding: clopidogrel 2.8%, ticagrelor 2.5%, p = 0.88). Patients with hemoglobin levels ≤ 8mg/dL demonstrated significantly higher MACE and major bleeding rates in the ticagrelor group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.002, respectively). Among patients aged ≥ 75 years, ticagrelor treatment was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (p = 0.04). Ticagrelor and clopidogrel exhibited comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in anemic ACS patients over a one-year period. Although ticagrelor demonstrated superiority in reducing ischemic events, it is crucial to recognize the limitations of retrospective studies in informing clinical practice. This study offers valuable insights into tailoring antiplatelet therapy for anemic ACS patients and provides guidance for personalized treatment strategies, acknowledging the hypothesis-generating nature of retrospective analyses.

Comparison of ticagrelor and prasugrel just before PCI in NSTE acute coronary syndromes, LIKE-ACCOAST analysis

Abstract Background Recommendations for the preference of prasugrel over ticagrelor just before PCI in NSTE ACS are based on limited and controversial evidence. Furthermore, prasugrel can’t be used in patients after a stroke/TIA, and the risk of bleeding in older and low-weight patients annuls its benefit. Purpose We aimed to add to the current evidence comparing the benefit of prasugrel and ticagrelor just before PCI (without pretreatment) in NSTE ACS patients. Methods The prasugrel population comprised the ACCOAST study non-pretreatment arm undergoing PCI (N 1372) (ref 1). The ticagrelor study population was selected from the long-term all-comers National Registry of Cardiovascular Surgery and Interventions: Module of Cardiovascular interventions of Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic (N 15126)who were 1) undergoing PCI for NSTE ACS, 2) received ticagrelor loading dose 180 mg just before the procedure, 3) fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ACCOAST trial (N 1370). The endpoint (identically to the ACCOAST primary EP) was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout seven days after PCI. The data were matched to the structure of published ACCOAST no pre-treatment group using R with maic package, which provides a generalized workflow for the generation of subject weights to be used in Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) (Ref 3,4). In MAIC, unbiased comparison between outcomes of two trials is facilitated by weighting the subject-level outcomes of one trial with weights derived such that the weighted aggregate measures of the prognostic or effect modifying variables are equal to those of the sample in the comparator trial. Results The study population characteristics are presented in Table. We did not find any difference in the efficacy endpoint at seven and 30 days after PCI between the groups treated with prasugrel and ticagrelor (Figure). Conclusion Prasugrel and ticagrelor given just before PCI for NSTE ACS are equally effective in reducing ischemic risk.Table.Efficacy endpoint occurence.

Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome at High Bleeding or Ischemic Risk

Current guidelines recommend individualizing the choice and duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy based on the trade-off between bleeding and ischemic risk. However, whether a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor) or a less potent one (clopidogrel) is more appropriate in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the setting of high bleeding or ischemic risk is not clear. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients with ACS at high bleeding or ischemic risk. A total of 5713 patients with ACS were included in this retrospective study. The Cox proportional hazard regression model were adjusted applying the inverse probability weighted (IPW) approach to reduce treatment selection bias. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital death, ACS, target vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, or clinically significant or major bleeding. The median follow-up duration was 53.6 months. After multivariable Cox model using IPW, all-cause death in the overall population and subgroups of patients at high bleeding risk, and/or at high ischemic risk were not significantly different between clopidogrel and ticagrelor. Rates for secondary outcomes were also similar between the groups. In conclusion, ticagrelor and clopidogrel are associated with comparable clinical outcomes among patients with ACS irrespective of bleeding and ischemic risk.

Biomarker-Based Prediction of Recurrent Ischemic Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

BackgroundIn patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), there is residual and variable risk of recurrent ischemic events. ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop biomarker-based prediction models for 1-year risk of cardiovascular (CV) death and myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. MethodsWe included 10,713 patients from the PLATO (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial in the development cohort and externally validated in 3,508 patients from the TRACER (Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial. Variables contributing to risk of CV death/MI were assessed using Cox regression models, and a score was derived using subsets of variables approximating the full model. ResultsThere were 632 and 190 episodes of CV death/MI in the development and validation cohorts. The most important predictors of CV death/MI were the biomarkers, growth differentiation factor 15, and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide, which had greater prognostic value than all candidate variables. The final model included 8 items: age (A), biomarkers (B) (growth differentiation factor 15 and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide), and clinical variables (C) (extent of coronary artery disease, previous vascular disease, Killip class, ACS type, P2Y12 inhibitor). The model, named ABC-ACS ischemia, was well calibrated and showed good discriminatory ability for 1-year risk of CV death/MI with C-indices of 0.71 and 0.72 in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. For CV death, the score performed better, with C-indices of 0.80 and 0.84 in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. ConclusionsAn 8-item score for the prediction of CV death/MI was developed and validated for patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The ABC-ACS ischemia score showed good calibration and discrimination and might be useful for risk prediction and decision support in patients with ACS. (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872; Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar [SCH 530348; MK-5348] in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Participants With Acute Coronary Syndrome [TRACER]; NCT00527943)

Comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on platelet function and prognosis in unstable angina

PurposeThis study aims to compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on platelet function, cardiovascular prognosis, and bleeding in patients with unstable angina pectoris.MethodsPatients with unstable angina pectoris undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled (January 2018–December 2019). In total, 212 patients were treated with ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) and 210 patients were treated with clopidogrel (75 mg once daily). Thromboelastography and light transmission aggregometry were used to measure the platelet aggregation rate (PAR). High-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT), pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), and heart-type fatty acid–binding protein (h-FABP) were measured to assess myocardial injury after PCI. Cardiovascular prognosis and bleeding events were evaluated in hospital and 12 months after discharge.ResultsThe PAR was significantly slower with ticagrelor (P < 0.001). hs-TnT, NT-proBNP, CRP, and h-FABP increased after compared with before PCI in both groups (P < 0.05). hs-TnT (P < 0.001) and h-FABP (P < 0.001) increased more significantly with clopidogrel. The in-hospital and 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates were not significantly different between the two groups. The in-hospital total bleeding event rate was higher with ticagrelor (P < 0.05). Minor bleeding and total bleeding were more frequent at the 12-month follow-up in the ticagrelor group (P < 0.05).ConclusionTicagrelor was more effective in suppressing the PAR than clopidogrel and reduced PCI-induced myocardial injury in patients with unstable angina pectoris. However, it increased in-hospital and 12-month bleeding events and had no benefit on in-hospital and 12-month MACEs.

Comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the treatment of patients with coronary heart disease carrying CYP2C19 loss of function allele

BackgroundClopidogrel is a traditional P2Y12 receptor inhibitor that is widely used in clinical practice, but there are significant individual differences in its therapeutic effect. Carriers of the CYP2C19 deletion allele have a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events than non-carriers.MethodsIn this study, 170 patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease (CHD) and on regular oral clopidogrel or ticagrelor antiplatelet therapy in the Department of Cardiology of Wuxi Second People’s Hospital from August to December 2019 were screened. Baseline patient data were collected, percutaneous coronary angiography (CAG) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) results were recorded, CYP2C19 gene type was detected, and prognosis/outcome was assessed by telephone/outpatient/inpatient follow-up for 12 months.Results(I) Of the 170 patients, 0.66% were the fast metabolic type, 41.45% were the normal metabolic type, 42.76% were the intermediate metabolic type, and 15.13% were the poor metabolic type. CYP2C19*2 mutation accounted for 89.29% of all mutations, CYP2C19*3 mutation accounted for 9.82%, and CYP2C19*17 mutation accounted for only 0.89%. (II) Among the patients with CHD who regularly took clopidogrel, the risk in the intermediate metabolic group was 5.208-fold higher than that of normal metabolic group, and that of the poor metabolic group was 3.75-fold higher than that of normal metabolic group; there was no significant difference between the intermediate and poor metabolic groups. (III) Prognosis was significantly associated with regular use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel by patients in the intermediate metabolic group. There was no significant correlation between poor metabolism (PM) and normal metabolism (NM). Prognosis was significantly associated with regular use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but not in patients who did not undergo PCI.ConclusionsCYP2C19 polymorphism was associated with the prognosis of patients with CHD administered antiplatelet therapy with oral clopidogrel. The incidence of poor prognosis was significantly increased with CYP2C19*2 and/or CYP2C19*3 mutations, and patients undergoing PCI or carrying a single CYP2C19 deletion allele had a better prognosis with ticagrelor as replacement therapy.

Comparison of Ticagrelor With Clopidogrel in East Asian Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

The risk of bleeding is high in East Asians, whether East Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome choose ticagrelor or clopidogrel is still controversial. In this study, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library database, and other sources were systematically searched. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause death, the primary safety outcomes were any bleeding, PLATO major bleeding, and fatal bleeding. The secondary outcomes included vascular-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and dyspnea. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials with 3597 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor had significantly higher incidence of any bleeding [risk ratio (RR), 1.63; 1.33-1.99; P < 0.00001], PLATO major bleeding (RR 1.56; 1.15-2.12; P = 0.004), and dyspnea (RR 2.60; 1.68-4.00; P < 0.00001). However, ticagrelor was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stent thrombosis (RR 0.42; 0.19-0.92; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause death (RR 0.87; 0.64-1.24; P = 0.44), fatal bleeding (RR 2.49; 0.79-7.86; P = 0.12), vascular-cause death (RR 0.88; 1.60-0.30; P = 0.52), myocardial infarction (RR 0.89; 0.65-1.23; P = 0.49), and stroke (RR 0.84; 0.47-1.50; P = 0.56) between the 2 groups. The present findings demonstrated that ticagrelor was associated with a higher risk of any bleeding, PLATO major bleeding, and dyspnea compared with clopidogrel in East Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome. However, it significantly reduced the risk of stent thrombosis. (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42021255215).

Comparison of Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Addition to Aspirin in Patients With Minor Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is effective in preventing recurrent strokes after minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, there is emerging evidence for the use of ticagrelor and aspirin, and the 2 DAPT regimens have not been compared directly. To compare ticagrelor and aspirin with clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA in the prevention of recurrent strokes or death. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from database inception until February 2021. Randomized clinical trials that enrolled adults with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA and provided the mentioned interventions within 72 hours of symptom onset, with a minimum follow-up of 30 days. PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses were followed. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised risk of bias. Fixed-effects models were fit using a bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Surface under the cumulative rank curve plots were produced. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent stroke or death up to 90 days. Secondary outcomes include major bleeding, mortality, adverse events, and functional disability. A sensitivity analysis was performed at 30 days for the primary outcome. A total of 4014 citations were screened; 5 randomized clinical trials were included. Data from 22 098 patients were analyzed, including 5517 in the clopidogrel and aspirin arm, 5859 in the ticagrelor and aspirin arm, and 10 722 in the aspirin arm. Both clopidogrel and aspirin (HR, 0.74; 95% CrI, 0.65-0.84) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.79; 95% CrI, 0.68-0.91) were superior to aspirin in the prevention of recurrent stroke and death. There was no statistically significant difference between clopidogrel and aspirin compared with ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.94; 95% CrI, 0.78-1.13). Both DAPT regimens had higher rates of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone. Clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with a decreased risk of functional disability compared with aspirin alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CrI, 0.74-0.91) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.75-0.97). DAPT combining aspirin with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel was superior to aspirin alone, but there was no statistically significant difference found between the 2 regimens for the primary outcome.

Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BackgroundTicagrelor has a Class I recommendation for use following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, ticagrelor needs to be taken twice a day, as compared to clopidogrel. Its adverse effects, such as dyspnea or bleeding, are known to be more common than with clopidogrel. Dyspnea may tend to be uncomfortable and limit activity. Major bleeding often leads to hospitalization or transfusions, and frequent minor bleeding, which might not result in patients seeking medical care, can make ACS patients feel unhealthy. Thus, these characteristics may affect the health-related quality of life (HQOL).MethodsIn the PLEIO (comParison of ticagreLor and clopidogrEl on mIcrocirculation in patients with acute cOronary syndrome) trial, we randomized 120 participants to receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for at least 12 months. We carried out an HQOL assessment with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire on the day of discharge following PCI, as well as six months later.ResultsAt discharge, the HQOL measures were similar in the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups, both having a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS) score. A six-month HQOL follow-up assessment showed that there were no differences between the two study groups in either the PCS or the MCS scores. In both groups, the PCS scores significantly increased over six months of treatment (both p < 0.01). However, the MCS score did not differ significantly. A baseline MCS score is an independent predictor of better physical and mental health status at six months.ConclusionsTicagrelor, as compared to clopidogrel, did not significantly reduce the HQOL during the six months following PCI in patients with ACS.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02618733.

Risk of Major Bleeding With Potent Antiplatelet Agents After an Acute Coronary Event: A Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in 5116 Consecutive Patients in Clinical Practice

BackgroundMajor bleeding after acute coronary syndrome predicts a poor outcome but is challenging to define. The choice of antiplatelet influences bleeding risk.Methods and ResultsMajor bleeding, subsequent myocardial infarction (MI), and all‐cause mortality to 1 year were compared in consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with clopidogrel (n=2491 between 2011 and 2013) and ticagrelor (n=2625 between 2012 and 2015) in 5 English hospitals. Clinical outcomes were identified from national hospital episode statistics. Bleeding and MI events were independently adjudicated by 2 experienced clinicians, blinded to drug, sequence, and year. Bleeding events were categorized using Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 to 5 and PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) criteria and MI by the Third Universal Definition. Multivariable regression analysis was used to adjust outcomes for case mix. The median age was 68 years and 34% were women. 39% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Clinical outcome data were 100% complete for bleeding and 99.7% for MI. No statistically significant difference was seen in crude or adjusted major bleeding for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3–5, hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 0.90–1.68; P=0.2, PLATO major adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98–1.74; P=0.07) except in the non‐coronary artery bypass graft cohort (n=4464), where bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3–5, adjusted HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09–2.31; P=0.017; and PLATO major HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.18–2.37; P=0.004). There was no difference in crude or adjusted subsequent MI (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.87–1.64; P=0.27). Crude mortality was higher in the clopidogrel group but not after adjustment, using either Cox proportional hazards or propensity matched population (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76–1.10; P=0.21) as was the case for stroke (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52–1.32; P=0.42).ConclusionsThis observational study indicates that the apparent benefit of ticagrelor demonstrated in a clinical trial population may not be observed in the broader population encountered in clinical practice.RegistrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02484924.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor or prasugrel is the mainstay of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to systematically perform a head-to-head comparison of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy and safety. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was adverse cardiovascular events and secondary outcome was bleeding events. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled estimate of each outcome. Nine RCTs with a total number of 6990 patients (3550 treated with prasugrel and 3481 treated with ticagrelor) were included. No significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor was observed in terms of mortality (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, P = 0.28), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, P = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06, P = 0.11), stroke (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.72, P = 0.95), stent thrombosis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21, P = 0.25), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) defined major (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.67, P = 0.94), minor (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.62, P = 0.18) and minimal (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.18, P = 0.11) bleeding and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) defined bleeding (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.36, P = 0.68). In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, both prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes and adverse bleeding events.

Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel on myocardial blood flow in patients with acute coronary syndrome, using 13 N-ammonia positron emission tomography

The PLEIO (comParison of ticagreLor and clopidogrEl on mIcrocirculation in patients with acute cOronary syndrome) study showed that 6 months of ticagrelor therapy significantly improved microvascular dysfunction in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with stent implantation compared to clopidogrel. Improved microvascular function may affect myocardial blood flow (MBF). We compared the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on MBF over a 6-month follow-up period among patients diagnosed with ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the PLEIO trial, 120 participants were randomized to receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily after at least 6 months. 13 N-ammonia positron emission tomography (PET) imaging was performed in 94 patients to measure MBF at the 6-month follow-up visit. On a per-patient level, MBF (1.88 ± 0.52 versus 1.67 ± 0.64 mL/min per gram, P = .01) was significantly higher with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the hyperemic state, but not under resting state (0.75 ± 0.24 versus 0.75 ± 0.19 mL/min per gram, P = .84). On a culprit-vessel analysis, the resting MBF was similar (0.69 ± 0.20 versus 0.70 ± 0.21, P = .89) between the two groups. However, the hyperemic MBF and myocardial flow reserve in the ticagrelor group were significantly higher compared with clopidogrel (1.75 ± 0.46 versus 1.52 ± 0.59, P = .03 and 2.71 ± 0.89 versus 2.20 ± 0.81, P = .02, respectively). These differences were not observed in non-culprit vessels. Maintenance treatment of ticagrelor increased the hyperemic MBF and myocardial flow reserve compared with clopidogrel. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02618733.

300.19 Comparison of Ticagrelor with Clopidogrel on Myocardial Blood Flow Measured by N-13 Ammonia Positron Emission Tomography in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study, compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor has shown impressive cardiovascular benefits for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are no available data related to coronary circulation after chronic treatment of ticagrelor in

Prevention of minor myocardial injury after elective percutaneous coronary intervention: comparison of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel

Background: Elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ePCI) may cause minor elevation of cardiac enzymes, so-called minor myocardial injury (MMI) which can be due to different pathophysiological mechanism (e.g. distal embolisation, side branch occlusion, increased platelet activation triggered by the intracoronary metallic stents). We aimed to compare the effectiveness of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for the prevention of MMI and major adverse clinical events (MACEs) after ePCI.Methods: Study population consisted of two groups of patients based on the treatment: Group I, receiving clopidogrel (n = 104), Group II, receiving ticagrelor (n = 96). Cardiac troponin I (cTnI), CK-MB were studied before and 12 hours after the procedure. Elevation of cTnI greater than 0.06 ng/ml was considered as MMI. All patients were also evaluated for the MACEs (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and transient ischaemic attack).Results: Fifty-two of 200 patients (26%) had MMI after the procedure. The minor myocardial injury was significantly more prevalent in clopidogrel group than that of ticagrelor group (33% vs. 19%, p = .03). Myocardial infarction (MI) and MACEs were significantly higher in the clopidogrel group (15% vs. 6%, for MI, p = .04; 16% vs. 6%, for MACEs, p = .03, respectively). Multivariate analysis demonstrated antiplatelet treatment, saphenous graft intervention, type-C lesion as independent predictors of MMI.Conclusions: Present study showed that the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin was more effective than combination of clopidogrel and aspirin in decreasing MMI and MACEs after elective stenting.

Comparative study of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in therapeutic effect of acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

ObjectivesComparison of Ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in antiplatelet therapeutic effect of acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsThe study focused on 2000 acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in our hospital from January 2013 to December 2015. To reduce the formation of acute stent thrombosis caused by clopidogrel resistance, we had two options, one was to double the dosage of clopidogrel, and the other was to substitute ticagrelor for clopidogrel. Based on random number table method, the 2000 patients were divided into experimental group and control group, each containing 1,000 patients. The patients in experimental group took 180 mg ticagrelor before PCI and 90 mg ticagrelor twice a day after PCI (Gu, 2016). In contrast, the patients control group took 600 mg clopidogrel before PCI and 150 mg clopidogrel once a day after PCI. Both groups were drawn 2.7 ml of fasting venous blood for platelet aggregation rate test before PCI and 2 h, 24 h, 7 days after PCI respectively. Turbidimetric method was used to measure the ADP-induced platelet aggregation rate and observe change of platelet aggregation rate and success rate. Incidence of liver and kidney malfunction and adverse actions were monitored. All patients accepted a 6-month of follow-up examination to record and compare incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The statistical results of both groups are analyzed and compared.ResultsThe platelet aggregation rate of experimental group before PCI and 2 h, 24 h, 7 days after PCI was 59.71% ± 7.24%, 59.20% ± 7.70%, 48.66% ± 7.80% and 43.39% ± 8.28%; The control group was 58.04% ± 5.61%, 56.25% ± 6.02%, 55.68% ± 3.14%, 53.94% ± 5.30%; Comparing the platelet aggregation rate of different time, P was less than 0.05. The success rate of platelet aggregation of experimental group and control group was 80.56% and 46.86% respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups and the P was less than .05. The postoperative serum creatinine level of experimental group was higher than that in the control group (P < .05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than that of the control group. There were significant differences between the two groups and the difference was of statistical significance (P < .05). According to the 5-month follow-up examination: the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in experimental group was 2.60% (52/2000) ,while the control group was 13.00% (260/2000) . There were significant differences between the two groups and the difference was of statistical significance (P < .05).ConclusionsCompared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor can achieve better n antiplatelet effect for patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and control the rate of adverse reactions within the acceptable range.

TCT-108 Comparison of Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel on Inflammation, Vascular Function, and Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Diabetic Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) Requiring Coronary Stenting: Prospective, Randomized, Cross-Over Design

Although both ticagrelor and prasugrel have shown potent anti-platelet effects, only ticagrelor inhibits cellular uptake of adenosine. We therefore compared adenosine associated pleiotropic effects such as systemic inflammation, vascular function, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells between

GW27-e0424 Comparison of Ticagrelor with Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing DES Implantation

Ticagrelor improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS),and without increased the rates of major bleeding. We studied the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in patients with ACS undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. We retrospectively enrolled 4401 ACS

The comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with acute ST elevated myocardial infarction

Objective To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) with acute ST elevated myocardial infarction(STEMI). Methods 120 patients with STEMI received PCI within 12h of symptom onset in our hospital were randomly divided into clopidogrel treated group(n= 60)and ticagrelor treated group(n= 60). Serum was collected before surgery and 36 hours after PCI for ALT,Cr,CK- MB, and MA. Cardiac ultrasound was examined, too. All patients were followed 6 months post- PCI for main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events(MACCE)and medicine side effect. Results No significantly difference was noted in baseline between the two groups. The level of CKMB and MA in the ticagrelor treated group[CK- MB(56.5±8.3)U/L,MA(45.9±6.4)mm[and clopidogrel treated group[CK- MB(74.3±9.6)U/L,MA(35.6±7.3)mm]were significant difference(CK- MB,P= 0.043;MA,P= 0.038). The MACCE of patients in ticagrelor treated group were significantly lower than patients in clopidogrel treated group during post- PCI 6 months follow- up(The ratio of angina in ticagrelor group was 1.7%,while in clopidogrel group was 6.7%,P= 0.042). Conclusion Ticagrelor is more effective in suppress the function of platelet, decrease MACCE in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI. Key words: Myocardial infarction; Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; Ticagrelor; Clopidogrel

Economic Analysis of Ticagrelor Therapy From a U.S. Perspective: Results From the PLATO Study

BackgroundBased on results of the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel therapy, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ticagrelor in 2011 for reducing thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with the proviso that it be taken with low-dose aspirin. ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the cost and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor therapy relative to clopidogrel in treating ACS patients from the perspective of the U.S. health care system. MethodsWe estimated within-trial resource use and costs using U.S. low-dose aspirin patients in PLATO (n = 547). Quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated using the total PLATO population (n = 18,624), combined with baseline risk and long-term survival data from an external ACS patient cohort. Study drugs were valued at current costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed, as was the sensitivity of results to sampling and methodological uncertainties. ResultsOne year of ticagrelor therapy, relative to that of generic clopidogrel, cost $29,665/quality-adjusted life-year gained, with 99% of bootstrap estimates falling under a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses, including variations in clopidogrel cost, exclusion of costs in extended years of life, and a recalibrated estimate of survival reflecting a lower underlying mortality risk in the United States. ConclusionsFor PLATO-eligible ACS patients, a U.S. perspective comparison of the current standard of dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin with clopidogrel versus aspirin plus ticagrelor showed that the ticagrelor regimen increased life expectancy at an incremental cost well within accepted benchmarks of good value for money. (A Comparison of Ticagrelor [AZD6140] and Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [PLATO]; NCT00391872)