Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. (16th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• 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; Laugwitz, Karl Ludwig; Schunkert, Heribert; Kastrati, Adnan; Cassese, Salvatore
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 14:Number 7(2021)
• Page Start: e010565
• Publication Date: 2021-06-16
• Subjects: acute coronary syndrome -- myocardial infarction -- percutaneous coronary intervention -- stroke -- ticagrelor; Cardiovascular system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.105
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010565
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-7640

Abstract

Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. 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. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.