Key result
De-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of net adverse clinical events (RR 0.67) compared to standard therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Why the study?
There was no definite conclusion on the efficacy and safety of switching from potent P2Y12 inhibitors to clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
Does de-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel reduce net adverse clinical events and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Meta-Analysis (n=7,627)
Does de-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel reduce net adverse clinical events and bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Relative Risk: 0.67 (95% CI 0.58–0.78)
Absolute Event Rate: 8.2% vs 12.2%
p-value: p=<0.00001
De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI significantly reduces bleeding and net adverse clinical events without increasing ischemic risk.
Supports de-escalation to clopidogrel in ACS-PCI; confirms net benefit across pooled randomized data.
Considering that there is no definite conclusion on the efficacy and safety of switching from potent P2Y 12 inhibitors to clopidogrel, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and compared the efficacy and safety of de-escalation or not of antiplatelet therapy. The relevant randomized controlled trials were included by searching several databases. Net adverse clinical events were identified as the composite end point, which was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and bleeding at 12 months after acute coronary syndromes. The efficacy end points were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, all-cause death, and stent thrombosis. Bleeding was designed as the safety end point. The risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals of end point events were calculated by the fixed-effects model. Six randomized controlled trials with 7627 patients met inclusion criteria. There were significant differences in the risk of net adverse clinical events (RR, 0.67, CI, 0.58-0.78, P < 0.00001) and bleeding end point (0.61, 0.52-0.71, P < 0.00001) between the 2 groups. However, there were no significant differences in the risk of all efficacy end points. In general, the strategy of de-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel can reduce the incidence of net adverse clinical events and bleeding events in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bai et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=7,627). De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy (switching from prasugrel/ticagrelor to clopidogrel) vs. Non-de-escalation (continuation of prasugrel or ticagrelor) was evaluated on Net adverse clinical events (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke and bleeding) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.78, p=<0.00001). De-escalation from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of net adverse clinical events (RR 0.67) compared to standard therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: