Why the study?
Diabetes is an independent risk factor for coronary no-reflow, and the comparative effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel loading before primary PCI on myocardial perfusion and in-hospital outcomes in this population required investigation.
Does a ticagrelor loading dose improve myocardial perfusion compared to a clopidogrel loading dose in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Does a ticagrelor loading dose improve myocardial perfusion compared to a clopidogrel loading dose in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
In Type II diabetic patients with anterior STEMI, a 180 mg loading dose of ticagrelor significantly improves post-PCI myocardial perfusion compared to a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel, without significantly increasing in-hospital bleeding.
Supports ticagrelor loading to enhance perfusion in diabetic anterior STEMI; extends P2Y12 inhibitor evidence to this high-risk subgroup.
Background: Diabetes mellitus is recognized as an independent risk factor for the development of Coronary No Reflow. Ticagrelor has a faster onset of action and a stronger antiplatelet effect as compared to clopidogrel. The aim of this study is to compare between ticagrelor and clopidogrel loading doses before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) and their different effect on myocardial perfusion and in-hospital Major Adverse Cardiac Events. Methods: The study included 170 patients with Type II diabetes, who presented with acute anterior wall STEMI who underwent primary PCI. They were randomized into two groups, the1st group 85 patients received clopidogrel loading dose (600 mg) and the 2nd group 85 patients received ticagrelor loading dose (180 mg). Postinterventional thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade and myocardial blush grade (MBG) were recorded as well as in-hospital outcomes. Results: In the clopidogrel group, 80% of the patients had TIMI III flow score, 15.3% had TIMI II flow score and 2.4% had TIMI I and TIMI 0 flow score. In the ticagrelor group, 95% of the patients had TIMI III flow score, 2.4% had TIMI II flow score and 1.2% had TIMI I and TIMI 0 flow score (P = 0.01). Regarding MBG, in the clopidogrel group, 64.7% of the patients had MBG III, 13% had MBG II flow score, 2.3% had MBG 1, and 20% had MBG 0. In the ticagrelor group, 93% of the patients had MBG III, 1.1% had MBG II flow score, 1.1% had MBG 1, and 4.8% had MBG 0 (P = 0.007). In the clopidogrel group there were 3.5% in-hospital mortality, while in ticagrelor 2.4% in-hospital mortality (2.4%) (P = 0.47). In the Clopidogrel group, in-hospital MACE was 5.8% versus 3.5% in the ticagrelor group (P = 0.65). In the Clopidogrel group, in-hospital bleeding was 3.5% versus 4.7% in the ticagrelor group (P = 0.7). Conclusion: Ticagrelor loading before primary PCI resulted in improved TIMI flow and MBG in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fakhry et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: