Cargando…

Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)

BACKGROUND: Limitations have been observed with the use of clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) indicating the urgent need of a more potent anti-platelet agent. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel following PCI. METHODS: Online datab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guan, Wenjun, Lu, Hongtao, Yang, Keping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30412125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012978
_version_ 1783369040836689920
author Guan, Wenjun
Lu, Hongtao
Yang, Keping
author_facet Guan, Wenjun
Lu, Hongtao
Yang, Keping
author_sort Guan, Wenjun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Limitations have been observed with the use of clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) indicating the urgent need of a more potent anti-platelet agent. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel following PCI. METHODS: Online databases were searched for relevant studies (published between the years 2007 and 2017) comparing ticagrelor versus clopidogrel following coronary stenting. Primary outcomes assessed efficacy whereas secondary outcomes assessed safety. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on a random effect model were calculated and the analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total number of 25,632 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [12,992 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 14,215 patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)] were included in this analysis, of whom 23,714 patients were revascularized by PCI. Results of this analysis did not show any significant difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction, stroke and stent thrombosis observed between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67–1.03; P = .09), (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–1.01; P = .06), (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.57–1.03; P = .08), (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.57–1.26; P = .42) and (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47–1.05; P =.09). However, ticagrelor was associated with a significantly higher minor and major bleeding with (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.30–1.89; P = .00001) and (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.01–2.29; P = 0.04) respectively. Dyspnea was also significantly higher in the ticagrelor group (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.87–3.72; P = .00001). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor and clopidogrel were comparable in terms of efficacy in these patients with ACS. However, the safety outcomes of ticagrelor should further be investigated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6221558
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62215582018-12-04 Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017) Guan, Wenjun Lu, Hongtao Yang, Keping Medicine (Baltimore) Research Article BACKGROUND: Limitations have been observed with the use of clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) indicating the urgent need of a more potent anti-platelet agent. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel following PCI. METHODS: Online databases were searched for relevant studies (published between the years 2007 and 2017) comparing ticagrelor versus clopidogrel following coronary stenting. Primary outcomes assessed efficacy whereas secondary outcomes assessed safety. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on a random effect model were calculated and the analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total number of 25,632 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [12,992 patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 14,215 patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)] were included in this analysis, of whom 23,714 patients were revascularized by PCI. Results of this analysis did not show any significant difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction, stroke and stent thrombosis observed between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67–1.03; P = .09), (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–1.01; P = .06), (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.57–1.03; P = .08), (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.57–1.26; P = .42) and (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47–1.05; P =.09). However, ticagrelor was associated with a significantly higher minor and major bleeding with (OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.30–1.89; P = .00001) and (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.01–2.29; P = 0.04) respectively. Dyspnea was also significantly higher in the ticagrelor group (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.87–3.72; P = .00001). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor and clopidogrel were comparable in terms of efficacy in these patients with ACS. However, the safety outcomes of ticagrelor should further be investigated. Wolters Kluwer Health 2018-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6221558/ /pubmed/30412125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012978 Text en Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
spellingShingle Research Article
Guan, Wenjun
Lu, Hongtao
Yang, Keping
Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title_full Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title_fullStr Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title_full_unstemmed Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title_short Choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis (2007–2017)
title_sort choosing between ticagrelor and clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2007–2017)
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6221558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30412125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012978
work_keys_str_mv AT guanwenjun choosingbetweenticagrelorandclopidogrelfollowingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis20072017
AT luhongtao choosingbetweenticagrelorandclopidogrelfollowingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis20072017
AT yangkeping choosingbetweenticagrelorandclopidogrelfollowingpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis20072017