One-year incidence and clinical impact of bleeding events in patients treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Newer P2Y12 Inhibitors vs Clopidogrel in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiac Arrest or Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes, safety, and efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiac arrest (CA) or cardiogenic shock (CS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried systematically from inception to January 2021 for comparative studies of adults (≥18 years) with AMI-CA/CS receiving DAPT with newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors as opposed to clopidogrel. We compared outcomes (30-day or in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and definite stent thrombosis) of newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and clopidogrel in patients with AMI-CA/CS.

RESULTS

Eight studies (1 randomized trial and 7 cohort studies) comprising 1100 patients (695 [63.2%] receiving clopidogrel and 405 [36.8%] receiving ticagrelor or prasugrel) were included. The population was mostly male (68.5%-86.7%). Risk of bias was low for these studies, with between-study heterogeneity and subgroup differences not statistically significant. Compared with the clopidogrel cohort, the newer P2Y₁₂ cohort had lower rates of early mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.81; P=.001) (7 studies) and 1-year mortality (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.71; P<.001) (3 studies). We did not find a significant difference in major bleeding (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.71 to 2.06; P=.48) (6 studies) or definite stent thrombosis (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.63 to 6.45; P=.24) (7 studies).

CONCLUSION

In patients with AMI-CA/CS receiving DAPT, compared with clopidogrel, newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were associated with lower rates of early and 1-year mortality. Data on major bleeding and stent thrombosis were inconclusive.

Efficacy and safety of newer P2Y12 inhibitors for acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis

Whether newer P2Y12 inhibitors are more efficacious and safer than clopidogrel and whether there is a superior one remain uncertain. We compared the effect of P2Y12 inhibitors on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Randomized controlled trials comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, or cangrelor, in combination with aspirin were searched. Sixteen trials with altogether 77,896 patients were included. Compared to clopidogrel, cardiovascular mortality was reduced with prasugrel (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97) and ticagrelor (0.82, 0.73-0.93). Myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.63-0.89) and major adverse cardiovascular events (0.80, 0.69-0.94) were reduced by prasugrel. Stent thrombosis was reduced by prasugrel (0.49, 0.38-0.63), ticagrelor (0.72, 0.57-0.90), and cangrelor (0.59, 0.43-0.81). It was reduced more by prasugrel than ticagrelor (0.69, 0.51-0.93). There were more major bleeds with prasugrel (1.24, 1.05-1.48). Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding was increased with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel (1.36, 1.11-1.66) and ticagrelor (1.33, 1.06-1.67). TIMI minor bleeding was increased with prasugrel (1.44, 1.16-1.77) and cangrelor (1.47, 1.01-2.16) compared to clopidogrel while it was increased with prasugrel compared to ticagrelor (1.32, 1.01-1.72). Prasugrel is preferable to those ACS patients at low bleeding risk to reduce cardiovascular events whereas ticagrelor is a relatively safe antiplatelet drug of choice for most patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in ACS Patients Treated with PCI: A Propensity Score Analysis of the RENAMI and BleeMACS Registries

INTRODUCTION

Real-life data comparing clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are lacking, as are data for the temporal distribution of ischemic and bleeding risks.

METHODS

A total of 19,825 patients were enrolled from the RENAMI and BleeMACS registries. Both were multicenter, retrospective, observational registries including the data and outcomes of consecutive patients with ACS who underwent primary PCI and were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We evaluated the long-term outcome stratified by the different antiplatelet agents.

RESULTS

A total of 14,105 patients (71.2%) were treated with clopidogrel, 2364 patients (11.9%) with prasugrel and 3356 patients (16.9%) with ticagrelor. After propensity score matching, at 1 year, prasugrel reduced the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE; a composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI] and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] 3-5 bleeding) (4.2% vs.7.6%, p = 0.002) and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite endpoint of death and MI) compared with clopidogrel (2.6% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.007). Ticagrelor decreased rates of MACE compared with clopidogrel (2.7% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001), but not of NACE (6.6% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.07). Ticagrelor presented similar performance in terms of MACE compared with prasugrel (2.8% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.56), with a trend towards a reduction in MI (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56), but with higher risk of BARC 3-5 bleedings (3.8% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.04). In the daily risk analysis, clopidogrel presented a binomial distribution with a peak of ischemic risk at 3 months, which decreased towards bleedings; prasugrel had a constant equivalence between opposite risks; and ticagrelor constantly reduced recurrent MIs despite higher risk of BARC 3-5 events.

CONCLUSION

In real life, ticagrelor is more effective in reducing ischemic events during the first year after ACS, despite an increased risk of major bleedings, while prasugrel assures a better balance between ischemic and bleeding recurrent events.

Associations between use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes by type of acute coronary syndrome: an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

Bleeding After Hospital Discharge Following Acute Coronary Syndrome: Incidence, Types, Timing, and Predictors

Background

The incidence and predictors of bleeding after acute coronary syndrome are unclear within the real‐world setting. Our objective was to determine the incidence, types, timing, and predictors of bleeding complications following hospital discharge after acute coronary syndrome.

Methods and Results

We used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, with linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics, to determine the incidence, timing, and types of bleeding events within 12 months after hospital discharge for acute coronary syndrome. We assessed independent associations between postdischarge bleeding and baseline patient characteristics using a competing risk regression model, accounting for death as a competing event. Among 27 660 patients surviving to hospital discharge, 3620 (13%) experienced bleeding complications at a median time of 123 days (interquartile range, 45–223 days) after discharge. The incidence of bleeding was 162/1000 person‐years (95% CI, 157–167/1000 person‐years) within the first 12 months after hospital discharge. Bruising (949 bleeds [26%]) was the most common type of first bleeding event, followed by gastrointestinal bleed (705 bleeds [20%]), whereas intracranial bleed was relatively rare (81 bleeds [2%]). Significant predictors of postdischarge bleeding included history of bleeding complication, oral anticoagulant prescription, history of peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and advanced age (>80 years). Predictors for postdischarge bleeding varied, depending on the anatomic site of the bleeding event.

Conclusions

Bleeding complications after hospital discharge for acute coronary syndrome are common. Patients who experience these bleeding events have distinct baseline characteristics, which vary by anatomic site of the bleed. These characteristics can inform risk‐benefit considerations in deciding on favorable combination and duration of secondary antithrombotic therapy.

Incidence and prognostic impact of post discharge bleeding post acute coronary syndrome within an outpatient setting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to determine the incidence of bleeding events post acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following hospital discharge. The secondary objective was to determine the prognostic impact of bleeding on mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial re-infarction and rehospitalisation in the postdischarge setting.

DESIGN

A narrative systematic review.

DATA SOURCE

Medline, Embase, Amed and Central (Cochrane) were searched up to August 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

For the primary objective, randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies reporting on the incidence of bleeding post hospital discharge were included. For the secondary objective, RCTs and observational studies that compared patients with bleeding versus those without bleeding post hospital discharge vis-à-vis mortality, MACE, myocardial re-infarction and rehospitalisation were included.

RESULTS

53 studies (36 observational studies and 17 RCTs) with a combined cohort of 714 458 participants for the primary objectives and 187 317 for the secondary objectives were included. Follow-up ranged from 1 month to just over 4 years. The incidence of bleeding within 12 months post hospital discharge ranged from 0.20% to 37.5% in observational studies and between 0.96% and 39.4% in RCTs. The majority of bleeds occurred in the initial 3 months after hospital discharge with bruising the most commonly reported event. Major bleeding increased the risk of mortality by nearly threefold in two studies. One study showed an increased risk of MACE (HR 3.00,95% CI 2.75 to 3.27; p<0.0001) with bleeding and another study showed a non-significant association with rehospitalisation (HR 1.20,95% CI 0.95 to 1.52; p=0.13).

CONCLUSION

Bleeding complications following ACS management are common and continue to occur in the long term after hospital discharge. These bleeding complications may increase the risk of mortality and MACE, but greater evidence is needed to assess their long-term effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017062378.

Comparison of Clopidogrel With Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Clinical Outcomes From the National Cardiovascular Database ACTION Registry

Background

We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor in clinical practice using the National Cardiovascular Database ACTION Registry^®. Treatment guidelines for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months. Few clinical trials have compared the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel with that of newer antiplatelet therapies.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients hospitalized for ACS at Cleveland Clinic Akron General was conducted. Data elements included detailed medical history and clinical outcomes during hospital stay. The primary outcome was a composite of major clinical events (cardiogenic shock, atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, bleeding, and mechanical ventilation). The independent variable was the type of DAPT. Statistical analyses were performed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. A post-hoc analysis was performed to compare between the antiplatelet drugs head-to-head.

Results

Subjects (n = 1,388) admitted between January 2011 and March 2016 with ACS and treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor were included in the study. Mean age was 65 ± 14 years and 46% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Prasugrel administration within 24 h was associated with a lower incidence of the composite outcome (P = 0.049), bleeding (P = 0.028), and heart failure (P = 0.002).

Conclusion

There was a significant difference between the type of antiplatelet drug and clinical outcomes in ACS patients who were treated with DAPT. Observations from current study may provide important information for prescribers in clinical decision-making.