Unità Operativa di Cardiologia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Parma, Italy.
Division of Cardiology, Parma University Hospital, Viale Gramsci 14, 43125, Parma, Italy.
J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017 Nov;44(4):466-474. doi: 10.1007/s11239-017-1567-0.
Aim of the study was to compare four different strategies of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with PCI. DAPT with Clopidogrel, Ticagrelor and Prasugrel has proved to be effective in patients with ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by reducing major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (MACE). However, the effect of the different strategies in a real-world population deserves further verification. A retrospective analysis of 2404 discharged ACS patients treated with PCI was performed, with a median follow-up of 1 year. The study population was stratified in four drug treatment cohorts: ASA + Clopidogrel (A-C), ASA + Plavix (A-PLx), ASA + Ticagrelor (A-T), ASA + Prasugrel (A-P). We assessed the incidence of net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE): all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stroke and bleeding during follow-up. At 1-year, the use of A-C and A-PLx was associated with the highest cumulative incidence of NACE in comparison with A-T and A-P therapies (respectively 14.8 and 29.6% vs. 9.2 and 6%). This difference was mainly driven by the mortality and TVR outcomes. Considering selection bias and differences in the patients baseline characteristics, the association of A-T and A-P seems to be superior in comparison with a DAPT strategy of A-C and A-PLx in low risk ACS-PCI patients from real world. In our Region the prescription is consistent with guidelines recommendations and Clopidogrel and Plavix are still predominantly used in older patients with more comorbidities, and this could partially explain the inferiority of this association.
研究目的是比较急性冠脉综合征(ACS)患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后使用的四种不同的双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT)策略。氯吡格雷、替格瑞洛和普拉格雷的 DAPT 已被证明可通过降低主要不良心血管事件(MACE)来有效治疗接受 PCI 的 ACS 患者。然而,不同策略在真实人群中的效果值得进一步验证。对 2404 例接受 PCI 治疗的出院 ACS 患者进行了回顾性分析,中位随访时间为 1 年。研究人群分为四组药物治疗队列:ASA+氯吡格雷(A-C)、ASA+Plavix(A-PLx)、ASA+替格瑞洛(A-T)、ASA+普拉格雷(A-P)。我们评估了净不良心血管事件(NACE)的发生率:随访期间的全因死亡、心肌梗死(MI)、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、卒中和出血。在 1 年时,与 A-T 和 A-P 治疗相比,A-C 和 A-PLx 的使用与 NACE 的累积发生率最高(分别为 14.8%和 29.6%比 9.2%和 6%)。这种差异主要是由死亡率和 TVR 结果驱动的。考虑到选择偏倚和患者基线特征的差异,与 A-C 和 A-PLx 的 DAPT 策略相比,A-T 和 A-P 的关联在来自真实世界的低危 ACS-PCI 患者中似乎更具优势。在我们地区,处方与指南建议一致,氯吡格雷和 Plavix 仍主要用于有更多合并症的老年患者,这可能部分解释了这种关联的劣势。