Why the study?
The clinical benefit of in-hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in patients with ACS undergoing PCI remains unclear.
Does in-hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor reduce net adverse clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does in-hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor reduce net adverse clinical events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
In real-world practice, in-hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in ACS patients undergoing PCI is associated with increased bleeding and net adverse clinical events without significantly reducing MACE.
Caution against routine switching due to bleeding risk; leaves open confirmation via RCTs in ACS-PCI.
This study evaluated clinical outcomes of switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The clinical benefit of in‐hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in these patients remains unclear. Among patients with ACS initially receiving clopidogrel, logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of switching to ticagrelor. Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare efficacy and safety between switching to ticagrelor and continuing clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACEs) at 12 months, a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2/3/5 bleeding. Among 10,519 patients initially receiving clopidogrel, 1405 (13.4%) were switched to ticagrelor at discharge. Stent number, left main artery lesions, diabetes, male sex, age, estimated glomerular filtration rate of <45 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , and history of PCI or stroke were identified as independent predictors of switching to ticagrelor. The rate of NACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18–1.91) or BARC type 2/3/5 bleeding (HR: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.52–2.66) was significantly higher in patients switching to ticagrelor than in those continuing clopidogrel. The risk of MACE was comparable between both the groups (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.41–1.22). In real‐world practice, in‐hospital switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor was independently associated with several clinical factors. Patients switching to ticagrelor had a higher rate of NACE or BARC type 2/3/5 bleeding than those continuing clopidogrel, without any reduction in the MACE rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: