Gatto Laura, Scalia Lorenzo, Biccirè Flavio Giuseppe, Prati Francesco
Cardiothoracic Department, San Giovanni-Addolorata Hospital, Rome.
Center for the Fight against Heart Attack, ONLUS Foundation, Rome.
Eur Heart J Suppl. 2024 Apr 17;26(Suppl 1):i74-i77. doi: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae022. eCollection 2024 Apr.
Secondary prevention of patients with chronic coronary syndrome is based on the long-term use of a single anti-aggregating drug which is traditionally represented by acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in light of the results of studies and meta-analyses which have demonstrated a clear anti-ischaemic efficacy against of an acceptable increase in the risk of bleeding, especially intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding. The availability of drugs such as clopidogrel, which inhibits platelet activity through the P2Y12 receptor pathway, has called into question this paradigm, also in consideration of the fact that the scientific evidence that supports the use of ASA in secondary prevention is based on dated studies with some limitations. Over the last few years, randomized trials have demonstrated how clopidogrel has an efficacy profile comparable to that of ASA and a safety profile that is sometimes even better. In light of the new evidence, it is therefore legitimate to ask whether in this clinical scenario, ASA should still be considered the drug of choice or whether clopidogrel could represent the preferable alternative.
根据研究和荟萃分析的结果,慢性冠状动脉综合征患者的二级预防基于长期使用单一抗聚集药物,传统上以阿司匹林(ASA)为代表,这些研究表明其具有明确的抗缺血疗效,同时出血风险(尤其是颅内和胃肠道出血)的增加在可接受范围内。诸如氯吡格雷等通过P2Y12受体途径抑制血小板活性的药物的出现,对这一模式提出了质疑,同时考虑到支持在二级预防中使用ASA的科学证据是基于有一定局限性的陈旧研究。在过去几年中,随机试验表明氯吡格雷的疗效与ASA相当,且安全性有时甚至更好。鉴于这些新证据,因此有理由质疑在这种临床情况下,ASA是否仍应被视为首选药物,或者氯吡格雷是否可作为更优的替代药物。