Why the study?
Real-world deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations were observed following polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent implantations, prompting an analysis of clinical practice patterns and associated outcomes.
Does ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel reduce net adverse clinical events in patients with CAD following polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent implantation?
Does ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel reduce net adverse clinical events in patients with CAD following polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent implantation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Real-world data suggests no significant difference in net adverse clinical events between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in both stable CAD and ACS patients.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this post hoc analysis was to analyze real-world dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens following polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (PF-SES) implantations in an unselected patient population. METHODS: Patient-level data from two all-comers observational studies (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were pooled and analyzed in terms of their primary endpoint. During the data verification process, we observed substantial deviations from DAPT guideline recommendations. To illuminate this gap between clinical practice and guideline recommendations, we conducted a post hoc analysis of DAPT regimens and clinical event rates for which we defined the net adverse event rate (NACE) consisting of target lesion revascularization (TLR, primary endpoint of all-comers observational studies) all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and bleeding events. A logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors why ticagrelor was used in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients instead of the guideline-recommended clopidogrel. RESULTS: For stable CAD, the composite endpoint of clinical, bleeding, and stent thrombosis, i.e., NACE, between the clopidogrel and ticagrelor treatment groups was not different (5.4% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.745). Likewise, in the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort, the NACE rates were not different between both DAPT strategies (9.2% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.927). There were also no differences in the accumulated rates for TLR, myocardial infarction ([MI], mortality, bleeding events, and stent thrombosis in elective and ACS patients. The main predictors for ticagrelor use in stable CAD patients were age < 65 years, smaller vessels, treatment of ostial and calcified lesions, and in-stent restenosis. CONCLUSION: Within the framework of a post hoc analysis based on a real-world, large cohort study, there were no differences in the combined endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), bleeding and thrombotic events for clopidogrel and ticagrelor in stable CAD or ACS patients. Despite the recommendation for clopidogrel by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), real-world ticagrelor use was observed in subgroups of stable CAD patients that ought to be explored in future trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krackhardt et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: