Clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). AIM: We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009-2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. RESULTS: For the period of 2009-2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice.

Pre-treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Although dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), it remains unclear when a second antiplatelet agent should be initiated. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of pre-treatment with clopidogrel in patients with NSTEACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We analysed baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of 6817 patients with NSTEACS who underwent PCI from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry from 2005 to 2012. Patients were included in the pre-treatment group if clopidogrel was administered prior to cardiac catheterisation. We assessed 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and major adverse cardiovascular events. The safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding. RESULTS: Of the 6817 patients, only 2951 (43%) received pre-treatment with clopidogrel. Patients in the pre-treatment group were more likely to present with unstable angina (70.8% vs 68.2%, P = 0.02) and have a history of MI (35.6% vs 23.6%, P < 0.01) but were less likely to have PCI within 24 h of admission (17.2% vs 25.2%, P < 0.01). There was no difference between the groups in 30-day mortality (0.9% vs 1.4%, P = 0.06), MI (2.0% vs 2.2%, P = 0.52) or major adverse cardiovascular event (3.7% vs 4.2%, P = 0.25). There was no difference in bleeding complications (1.9% vs 1.9%, P = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy in NSTEACS is not routine clinical practice in Australia. Pre-treatment appears safe but is not associated with improved short-term clinical outcomes.