Key result
Clopidogrel-based DAPT linked to similar in-stent stenosis risk as ticagrelor after flow diversion.
Why the study?
No studies had compared dual antiplatelet therapy regimens using ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing flow diversion with newer generation surface-modified stents.
Does ticagrelor-based DAPT compared to clopidogrel-based DAPT improve outcomes in patients undergoing flow diversion with surface-modified stents?
Cohort (n=171)
Yes
Does ticagrelor-based DAPT compared to clopidogrel-based DAPT improve outcomes in patients undergoing flow diversion with surface-modified stents?
Odds Ratio: 0.63 (95% CI 0.25–1.59)
p-value: p=.333
Ticagrelor and clopidogrel demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy as part of dual antiplatelet therapy following flow diversion with surface-modified stents.
May inform DAPT selection after flow diversion; leaves open optimal regimen for surface-modified stents pending prospective data.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is an essential component of medical management after flow diversion. To our knowledge, no studies have compared DAPT regimens using ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients undergoing flow diversion with newer generation surface-modified stents. Our study compares outcomes of flow diversion between ticagrelor- and clopidogrel-based DAPT. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent flow diversion with surface-modified stents at 6 participating institutions in North America. Patients were dichotomized based on DAPT regimen into acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) + ticagrelor vs ASA + clopidogrel. Outcomes of interest were in-stent stenosis (ISS), stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), and hemorrhagic complications on follow-up. RESULTS: Of 171 patients, 48.5% (n = 83) received ticagrelor and 51.4% (n = 88) received clopidogrel. A total of 13.4% patients (n = 23) developed ISS, 6.4% (n = 11) developed stroke/TIA, and 3.5% (n = 6) developed hemorrhagic complications After propensity-score weighting, patients who received clopidogrel did not have higher odds for ISS (odds ratio [OR]: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25-1.59, P = .333), stroke/TIA (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.19-2.43, P = .555), or hemorrhagic complications (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.02-1.51, P = .113), compared with those receiving ticagrelor. CONCLUSION: DAPT with ASA and ticagrelor demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to ASA and clopidogrel. Clopidogrel-based DAPT regimens should be considered as first line in preventing ischemic complications. However, in case of clopidogrel resistance, the use of ticagrelor does not confer increased risk of hemorrhagic complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roy et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Flow diversion with surface-modified stents (n=171). ASA + clopidogrel vs. ASA + ticagrelor was evaluated on In-stent stenosis (ISS) (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.59, p=.333). Clopidogrel-based DAPT was associated with similar odds of in-stent stenosis compared to ticagrelor-based DAPT after flow diversion (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.25-1.59; P=0.333).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: