• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的稳定性冠心病患者中的疗效和安全性。

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College.

出版信息

J Atheroscler Thromb. 2021 Aug 1;28(8):873-882. doi: 10.5551/jat.57265. Epub 2020 Sep 8.

DOI:10.5551/jat.57265
PMID:32908113
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8326171/
Abstract

AIM

The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain uncertain. Thus, this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with SCAD treated with PCI.

METHODS

A total of 9,379 patients with SCAD undergoing PCI who received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were consecutively enrolled in two groups, namely, ticagrelor (n=1,081) and clopidogrel (n=8,298) groups. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and bleeding events according to ticagrelor or clopidogrel use were compared.

RESULTS

After propensity matching (n=1,081 in each group), ticagrelor was associated with fewer MACCEs compared with clopidogrel (3.6% vs. 5.7%, hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.93, p=0.019), and the difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel for bleeding events was nonsignificant (4.0% vs. 3.2%, HR=1.24, 95% CI 0.79-1.93, p=0.356). On the other hand, the difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel for net adverse clinical events was significant (4.1% vs. 6.0%, HR=0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.98, p=0.039). In a multivariate analysis, the use of ticagrelor, number of stents, previous history of diabetes, previous history of smoking, and ACC/AHA type B2 or C lesions were considered independent predictors of MACCEs, while radial artery access, previous history of stroke, and weight <60kg were independent predictors of bleeding events. Conclusions Ticagrelor was associated with a lower incidence of MACCEs without an increased risk of bleeding events in patients with SCAD receiving PCI.

摘要

目的

替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的稳定型冠状动脉疾病(SCAD)患者中的疗效和安全性尚不确定。因此,本研究旨在比较替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在接受 PCI 治疗的 SCAD 患者中的疗效和安全性。

方法

共纳入 9379 例接受双重抗血小板治疗(DAPT)的 SCAD 行 PCI 患者,连续分为替格瑞洛(n=1081)和氯吡格雷(n=8298)两组。比较两组患者根据替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷的使用情况发生的主要不良心血管和脑血管事件(MACCEs)和出血事件。

结果

在倾向评分匹配(每组 1081 例)后,与氯吡格雷相比,替格瑞洛发生 MACCEs 的风险较低(3.6%比 5.7%,风险比[HR]=0.62,95%置信区间[CI]0.41-0.93,p=0.019),替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷的出血事件差异无统计学意义(4.0%比 3.2%,HR=1.24,95%CI0.79-1.93,p=0.356)。另一方面,替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷的净不良临床事件差异有统计学意义(4.1%比 6.0%,HR=0.67,95%CI0.46-0.98,p=0.039)。多因素分析显示,使用替格瑞洛、支架数量、既往糖尿病史、既往吸烟史以及 ACC/AHA 类型 B2 或 C 病变是 MACCEs 的独立预测因素,而桡动脉入路、既往卒中史和体重<60kg 是出血事件的独立预测因素。结论:替格瑞洛在接受 PCI 的 SCAD 患者中可降低 MACCEs 的发生率,且不会增加出血事件的风险。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/20e76d89149d/28_57265_3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/8ab05cab47a8/28_57265_1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/923b7201fdb0/28_57265_2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/20e76d89149d/28_57265_3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/8ab05cab47a8/28_57265_1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/923b7201fdb0/28_57265_2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8bd2/8326171/20e76d89149d/28_57265_3.jpg

相似文献

1
Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的稳定性冠心病患者中的疗效和安全性。
J Atheroscler Thromb. 2021 Aug 1;28(8):873-882. doi: 10.5551/jat.57265. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
2
Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in East Asian patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷在东亚经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的冠心病患者中的疗效和安全性。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Nov;36(11):1739-1745. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2020.1825364. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
3
A novel de-escalation antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.一种新型的急性冠状动脉综合征经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者的降阶抗血小板治疗。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Jul 7;102(27):e34153. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034153.
4
Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Two CYP2C19 Loss-of-Function Alleles Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中携带两个 CYP2C19 失活等位基因的患者中的比较。
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2020 Apr;34(2):179-188. doi: 10.1007/s10557-020-06956-4.
5
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Cohort Study.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的老年患者中的临床结局比较:一项队列研究。
Clin Interv Aging. 2022 Apr 2;17:331-341. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S355210. eCollection 2022.
6
Effectiveness of dual antiplatelet de-escalation therapy on the prognosis of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.双联抗血小板药物降级疗法对行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者预后的影响。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023 Mar 29;23(1):168. doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03152-8.
7
Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷单药治疗与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后双联抗血小板治疗:系统评价和患者水平荟萃分析。
JAMA Cardiol. 2024 May 1;9(5):437-448. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.0133.
8
Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI): a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.替格瑞洛在既往经皮冠状动脉介入治疗史的糖尿病合并稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者中的应用(THEMIS-PCI):一项 3 期、安慰剂对照、随机临床试验。
Lancet. 2019 Sep 28;394(10204):1169-1180. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31887-2. Epub 2019 Sep 1.
9
Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease and prior coronary artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.替卡格雷与氯吡格雷在有症状外周动脉疾病和既往冠状动脉疾病患者中的比较:来自 EUCLID 试验的结果。
Vasc Med. 2018 Dec;23(6):523-530. doi: 10.1177/1358863X18775594. Epub 2018 Jul 11.
10
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel for Elderly Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷用于行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的老年中国患者的疗效和安全性比较:一项单中心回顾性队列研究。
Drugs Aging. 2022 Sep;39(9):695-703. doi: 10.1007/s40266-022-00971-w. Epub 2022 Aug 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Synthetic Small-Molecule Ligands Targeted to Adenosine Receptors: Is There Potential Towards Ischemic Heart Disease?靶向腺苷受体的合成小分子配体:对缺血性心脏病有潜在作用吗?
Cells. 2025 Aug 7;14(15):1219. doi: 10.3390/cells14151219.
2
Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的慢性冠状动脉综合征患者中的疗效和安全性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Cureus. 2025 Jun 16;17(6):e86107. doi: 10.7759/cureus.86107. eCollection 2025 Jun.
3
Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Coronary Disease.

本文引用的文献

1
JCS 2020 Guideline Focused Update on Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.《日本循环学会(JCS)2020年冠状动脉疾病患者抗栓治疗指南重点更新》
Circ J. 2020 Apr 24;84(5):831-865. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-19-1109. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
2
2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes.2019年欧洲心脏病学会慢性冠状动脉综合征诊断和管理指南
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz425.
3
Association of potent P2Y12 blockers with ischemic and bleeding outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
评估替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在慢性冠状动脉疾病经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的安全性和有效性。
Cureus. 2025 Jan 18;17(1):e77610. doi: 10.7759/cureus.77610. eCollection 2025 Jan.
4
Smoking and outcomes following personalized antiplatelet therapy in chronic coronary syndrome patients: A substudy from the randomized PATH-PCI trial.慢性冠状动脉综合征患者个性化抗血小板治疗后的吸烟情况及预后:随机PATH-PCI试验的一项子研究
Clin Cardiol. 2024 Mar;47(3):e24214. doi: 10.1002/clc.24214.
5
Comparison of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Elective Coronary Stenting: A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷用于择期冠状动脉支架置入术的比较:一项双盲随机临床试验。
J Interv Cardiol. 2023 Dec 26;2023:5544440. doi: 10.1155/2023/5544440. eCollection 2023.
6
Comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy in patients with chronic coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后慢性冠状动脉综合征患者抗血小板或抗凝治疗的比较疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的网状Meta分析
Front Pharmacol. 2022 Sep 30;13:992376. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.992376. eCollection 2022.
7
Comparison of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on platelet function and prognosis in unstable angina.比较替格瑞洛和氯吡格雷对不稳定型心绞痛患者血小板功能和预后的影响。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 Dec;78(12):1949-1958. doi: 10.1007/s00228-022-03401-3. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
8
Real-World Data on Potent P2Y12 Inhibition in Patients with Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome, Referred for Coronary Angiography.疑似慢性冠状动脉综合征患者行冠状动脉造影术时的强效 P2Y12 抑制的真实世界数据。
Cardiology. 2022;147(5-6):486-496. doi: 10.1159/000527459. Epub 2022 Oct 10.
9
Ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in carrier of nonfunctional allele who has diabetes and acute coronary syndrome - case report and literature review.替格瑞洛在患有糖尿病和急性冠状动脉综合征的无功能等位基因携带者中比氯吡格雷更有效——病例报告及文献综述
AIMS Mol Sci. 2022;9(2):66-78. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2022004. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
10
Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷用于稳定型冠状动脉疾病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的疗效比较
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 22;8:768190. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.768190. eCollection 2021.
强效 P2Y12 抑制剂与非 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死的缺血和出血结局的关联。
J Cardiol. 2019 Feb;73(2):142-150. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2018.09.002. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
4
Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of platelet response to ticagrelor in stable coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction patients.稳定型冠状动脉疾病和既往心肌梗死患者血小板对替格瑞洛反应的药代动力学-药效学模型。
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Feb;85(2):413-421. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13812. Epub 2018 Dec 18.
5
Efficacy and Safety of Loading Doses With P2Y12-Receptor Antagonists in Patients Without Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Undergoing Elective Coronary Intervention.未行双联抗血小板治疗的择期经皮冠状动脉介入治疗患者中应用 P2Y12 受体拮抗剂负荷剂量的疗效和安全性。
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2019 Jan;73(1):56-59. doi: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000000632.
6
Comparison of prescription rates and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using different P2Y inhibitors in a large observational study.一项大型观察性研究比较了经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性冠状动脉综合征患者使用不同 P2Y 抑制剂的处方率和临床结局。
Int J Cardiol. 2019 Jan 1;274:21-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.011. Epub 2018 Sep 5.
7
Third-Generation P2Y12 Inhibitors in East Asian Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Nationwide Prospective Multicentre Study.东亚急性心肌梗死患者中的第三代 P2Y12 抑制剂:一项全国范围的前瞻性多中心研究。
Thromb Haemost. 2018 Mar;118(3):591-600. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1626697. Epub 2018 Mar 13.
8
Antiplatelet Therapy in ACS Patients: Comparing Appropriate P2Y12 Inhibition by Clopidogrel to the Use of New P2Y12 Inhibitors.急性冠脉综合征患者的抗血小板治疗:比较氯吡格雷对 P2Y12 的适当抑制与新型 P2Y12 抑制剂的应用。
J Atheroscler Thromb. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):674-689. doi: 10.5551/jat.40584. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
9
Relative efficacy and safety of ticagelor vs clopidogrel as a function of time to invasive management in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the PLATO trial.在PLATO试验中,替卡格雷与氯吡格雷在非ST段抬高型急性冠脉综合征中相对于侵入性治疗时间的相对疗效和安全性。
Clin Cardiol. 2017 Jun;40(6):390-398. doi: 10.1002/clc.22733. Epub 2017 Jun 9.
10
Outcomes in patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after acute myocardial infarction: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry.急性心肌梗死后使用替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷治疗的患者结局:来自 SWEDEHEART 注册研究的经验。
Eur Heart J. 2016 Nov 21;37(44):3335-3342. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw284. Epub 2016 Jul 19.