Chakraborty Subhro, Sarkar Debalina, Samajdar Shambo Samrat, Biswas Pallab, Mohapatra Debasish, Halder Saptarshi, Yunus Mohammad
Department of Cardiology, RGKar Medical College, HA 35, Sector 3, Saltlake CityKolkata, 700097, India.
Department of Endocrinology, RGKar Medical College, Kolkata, India.
Egypt Heart J. 2024 Apr 16;76(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s43044-024-00480-8.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared to ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent percutaneous intervention.
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant head-on-comparison or swapping studies. The primary outcome was the rate of high platelet reactivity (HPR) at specific time intervals after stopping cangrelor infusion during the first 24 h. Secondary outcomes were the risks of thrombosis, all-cause mortality and bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models.
A total of 1018 studies were screened and eight were included in the analysis. There were four head-on-comparison studies and four swapping studies. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving a high platelet reactivity in swapping studies [OR, 0.71 (95% CI 0.04, 13.87), p = 0.82, i = 88%]. In head-on-comparison studies, PRU from Fig. 2B shows there was no significant reduction in high platelet reactivity [mean difference - 77.83 (95% CI - 238.84, 83.18), p < 0.001, i = 100%]. PRU results from (Fig. 2C) show a mean difference of 7.38 (95% CI - 29.74, 44.51), p < 0.001, i = 97%. There was no significant difference in the risks of thrombosis [OR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.20, 4.13), p = 0.81, i = 0%], all-cause mortality [OR, 3.52 (95% CI 0.44, 27.91), p = 0.24, i = 26%] and bleeding [OR, 0.89 (95% CI 0.37, 2.17), p = 0.93, i = 0%] between the two groups as revealed in the head-on-comparison studies.
The efficacy and safety profiles of cangrelor and ticagrelor were similar in patients with STEMI.
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较坎格雷洛与替格瑞洛在接受经皮介入治疗的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者中的疗效和安全性。
检索PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane CENTRAL和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库,查找相关的直接比较或交叉研究。主要结局是在停止输注坎格雷洛后的前24小时内特定时间间隔的高血小板反应性(HPR)发生率。次要结局是血栓形成、全因死亡率和出血的风险。使用随机效应模型计算合并比值比(OR)。
共筛选了1018项研究,8项纳入分析。有4项直接比较研究和4项交叉研究。交叉研究中达到高血小板反应性的患者比例无显著差异[OR,0.71(95%CI 0.04,13.87),p = 0.82,I² = 88%]。在直接比较研究中,图2B中的血小板反应单位(PRU)显示高血小板反应性无显著降低[平均差 - 77.83(95%CI - 238.84,83.18),p < 0.001,I² = 100%]。图2C中的PRU结果显示平均差为7.38(95%CI - 29.74,44.51),p < 0.001,I² = 97%。直接比较研究显示,两组之间的血栓形成风险[OR,0.91(95%CI 0.20,4.13),p = 0.81,I² = 0%]、全因死亡率[OR,3.52(95%CI 0.44,27.91),p = 0.24,I² = 26%]和出血风险[OR,0.89(95%CI 0.37,2.17),p = 0.93,I² = 0%]无显著差异。
在STEMI患者中,坎格雷洛和替格瑞洛的疗效和安全性相似。