Bahouth Fadel, Chutko Boris, Sholy Haitham, Hassanain Sabreen, Zaid Gassan, Radzishevsky Evgeny, Fahmwai Ibrahem, Hamoud Mahmod, Samnia Nemer, Khoury Johad, Dobrecky-Mery Idit
Department of Cardiology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa 31096, Israel.
Pulmonology Division, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel.
Medicines (Basel). 2025 May 14;12(2):13. doi: 10.3390/medicines12020013.
A direct head-to-head comparison between potent P2Y12 inhibitors: prasugrel versus ticagrelor is still lacking. In this single-center study, we sought to address the efficacy and safety of these two third-generation antiplatelet drugs, after about a decade of practical use. A retrospective observational study included all patients who were admitted with acute coronary syndrome between January 2010 and December 2019 and were discharged with aspirin and either prasugrel or ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into two groups based on the dual antiplatelet drugs prescribed. Primary endpoint: A composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, recurrent coronary syndrome, or ischemic stroke at one year. Secondary endpoint: Significant bleeding according to the BARC classification (types 3, 4, or 5). During this period, 746 patients met the inclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was reached in 70 patients (9.4%): 24 patients (8.0%) in the group treated with ticagrelor and 46 patients (10.3%) in the group treated with prasugrel (-value = 0.303). In terms of safety events, significant bleeding was not statistically different between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups: 13 (2.9%) vs. 9 (3%), respectively (-value = 0.9). More patients discontinued their treatment before the end of the year among those treated with ticagrelor compared to those treated with prasugrel. [16.7% vs. 9.6%, -value = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of recurrent cardiac events, stroke, or cardiovascular death, nor significant bleeding among ACS patients treated either with prasugrel or ticagrelor
强效P2Y12抑制剂之间的直接头对头比较:普拉格雷与替格瑞洛的比较仍很缺乏。在这项单中心研究中,我们试图探讨这两种第三代抗血小板药物在经过约十年实际应用后的疗效和安全性。一项回顾性观察性研究纳入了2010年1月至2019年12月期间因急性冠状动脉综合征入院且在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后出院时服用阿司匹林及普拉格雷或替格瑞洛的所有患者。根据所开的双联抗血小板药物将患者分为两组。主要终点:一年时心血管死亡、复发性冠状动脉综合征或缺血性卒中的复合终点。次要终点:根据BARC分类(3、4或5型)的严重出血。在此期间,746例患者符合纳入标准。70例患者(9.4%)达到主要终点:替格瑞洛治疗组2例患者(8.0%),普拉格雷治疗组46例患者(10.3%)(P值 = 0.303)。在安全事件方面,替格瑞洛组和普拉格雷组之间的严重出血在统计学上无差异:分别为13例(2.9%)和9例(3%)(P值 = 0.9)。与普拉格雷治疗的患者相比,替格瑞洛治疗的患者中有更多患者在年底前停药。[16.7%对9.6%,P值 = 0.003]。接受普拉格雷或替格瑞洛治疗的急性冠状动脉综合征患者在复发性心脏事件、卒中或心血管死亡的发生率方面无显著差异,严重出血情况也无显著差异。