PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2026EuroIntervention1 citationsOpen Access

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in orally anticoagulated patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

View Full Paper
OEOskar Love EmilssonMMMoman A. MohammadJPJesper van der Pals

Key Result

In ACS patients on DOACs undergoing PCI, ticagrelor was associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared with clopidogrel (aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.06-2.22), with no difference in MACE.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=3,708)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does ticagrelor reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared to clopidogrel in orally anticoagulated patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?

P
Population
3,708 orally anticoagulated patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on dual antithrombotic treatment, median age 76 years, 69% males, 40% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Data from the SWEDEHEART registry.
I
Intervention
Ticagrelor as part of dual antithrombotic treatment
C
Comparator
Clopidogrel as part of dual antithrombotic treatment
O
Outcome
Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including mortality, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) within one yearcomposite

In ACS patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI, ticagrelor as part of dual antithrombotic therapy increases bleeding risk without improving ischemic outcomes compared to clopidogrel.

Main Result

Effect estimate: aHR 1.02 (95% CI 0.84-1.23)

Absolute Event Rate: 16.7% vs 16.6%

Abstract

BACKGROUND: inhibitor strategies in this setting is limited. AIMS: This study aimed to compare outcomes with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel as part of dual antithrombotic treatment in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: Using data from the SWEDEHEART registry, we conducted a cohort study including patients on dual antithrombotic treatment with ACS undergoing PCI between January 2014 and February 2022. Outcomes within one year were analysed using multivariate Cox regression to obtain adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including mortality, myocardial infarction MI, and stroke), all-cause mortality, clinically relevant bleeding, and MI. RESULTS: A total of 3,708 patients were included (median age 76 years; 69% males; 40% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction). At discharge, 1,170 (32%) received ticagrelor and 2,538 (68%) clopidogrel. For MACE, the unadjusted event rate was 16.7% in the ticagrelor group and 16.6% in the clopidogrel group (aHR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.84-1.23). Mortality occurred in 6.6% of patients treated with ticagrelor and 6.2% of those treated with clopidogrel (aHR 1.24, 95% CI: 0.91-1.69). Bleeding was 4.9% in the ticagrelor group compared with 3.7% in the clopidogrel group (aHR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.06-2.22). MI occurred in 10.4% of patients on ticagrelor and 11.2% of those on clopidogrel (aHR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.71-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients on DOACs undergoing PCI, ticagrelor was associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared with clopidogrel, with no differences in MACE, mortality, or MI.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Emilsson et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome in orally anticoagulated patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=3,708). Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.23). In ACS patients on DOACs undergoing PCI, ticagrelor was associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared with clopidogrel (aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.06-2.22), with no difference in MACE.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a08abd0ad370a6b44de426bhttps://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-25-01373
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper