Why the study?
In STEMI, the onset of action of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is delayed, and while crushed tablets may provide earlier platelet inhibition, existing evidence is limited by small sample sizes and pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic endpoints.
Does crushing oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors improve early platelet inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to standard integral tablets?
Does crushing oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors improve early platelet inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndrome compared to standard integral tablets?
Crushing oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors provides earlier platelet inhibition in ACS patients, but large randomized trials are required to determine clinical benefit.
May support faster onset in ACS; leaves open clinical benefit without large randomized trials.
Oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors represent a mainstay treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, when early platelet inhibition is highly desirable, the onset of action of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors is, however, delayed, likely due to delayed drug absorption. Crushing the tablets, which are to be used for patient loading with an oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, has been shown to provide earlier platelet inhibition than standard, integral tablets administration. Chewed ticagrelor tablets may also result in a similar effect. Such findings should be interpreted with caution, mainly due to the small number of patients enrolled and the nature (pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic) of the respective studies. Furthermore, in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, who remain comatose, crushing tablets is commonly applied in clinical practice for platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibition. In this review, we focus on current evidence regarding the role of crushed P2Y12 receptor inhibitor pills, analyzing clinical scenarios where most of the promise exists along with future expectations from this type of formulation. Large randomized studies are needed to draw firm conclusions regarding the clinical benefit of ‘crushing’ over the usual ‘not-crushing’ practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexopoulos et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: