Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
The Zena and Michael Weiner Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Am Heart J. 2018 Aug;202:54-60. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.04.020. Epub 2018 May 7.
Although bradyarrhythmias have been observed with ticagrelor and its use with advanced atrioventricular block is not recommended, questions arise regarding its use in patients with mild conduction abnormalities. The objectives were to compare rates of clinically relevant arrhythmias in relation to any mild baseline conduction abnormality in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.
We included all subjects in the electrocardiographic (ECG) substudy of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial, excluding those with missing baseline ECG or with a pacemaker at baseline (N = 15,460). Conduction abnormality was defined as sinus bradycardia, first-degree atrioventricular block, hemiblock, or bundle-branch block. The primary arrhythmic outcome was the composite of any symptomatic brady- or tachyarrhythmia, permanent pacemaker placement, or cardiac arrest through 12 months.
Patients with baseline conduction abnormalities (n = 4,256, 27.5%) were older and more likely to experience the primary arrhythmic outcome. There were no differences by ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the composite arrhythmic end point in those with baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: 17% for both study arms; hazard ratio: 0.99 [0.86-1.15]) or without baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: clopidogrel 12.8% vs ticagrelor 12.4%; hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.88-1.09). There were also no statistically significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the rates of bradycardic (or any individual arrhythmic) events in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities.
Ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel did not increase arrhythmic events even in subjects with acute coronary syndrome who present with mild conduction abnormalities on their baseline ECG.
尽管替格瑞洛可引起缓心律失常,且不建议将其用于存在三度房室传导阻滞的患者,但人们对于该药在存在轻度传导异常的患者中的应用仍存在疑问。本研究旨在比较急性冠脉综合征患者中,无论基线时轻度传导异常情况如何,接受替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷治疗时与临床相关心律失常发生率的关系。
我们纳入了血小板抑制和患者结局试验(Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial)心电图(ECG)亚研究中的所有患者,排除了基线时心电图缺失或存在起搏器的患者(N=15460)。传导异常定义为窦性心动过缓、一度房室传导阻滞、单侧束支阻滞或双侧束支阻滞。主要心律失常结局是任何有症状的缓或速性心律失常、永久性起搏器植入或心脏骤停的复合终点,随访时间为 12 个月。
基线时存在传导异常的患者(n=4256,占 27.5%)年龄更大,更有可能发生主要心律失常结局。与氯吡格雷相比,基线时存在传导疾病的患者(研究药物组 1 年累积发生率:替格瑞洛组和氯吡格雷组均为 17%;风险比:0.99 [0.86-1.15])或不存在基线传导疾病的患者(研究药物组 1 年累积发生率:氯吡格雷组 12.8% vs 替格瑞洛组 12.4%;风险比:0.98 [0.88-1.09])接受替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷治疗时,复合心律失常终点无差异。在基线存在传导异常的患者中,替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷相比,缓心(或任何单一心律失常)事件发生率也无统计学差异。
与氯吡格雷相比,替格瑞洛并未增加心律失常事件,即使在基线 ECG 存在轻度传导异常的急性冠脉综合征患者中也是如此。