Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in real-world patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results by propensity score analysis

European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world populatio...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC cardiovascular disorders 2017-04, Vol.17 (1), p.97-97, Article 97
Hauptverfasser: Vercellino, Matteo, Sànchez, Federico Ariel, Boasi, Valentina, Perri, Dino, Tacchi, Chiara, Secco, Gioel Gabrio, Cattunar, Stefano, Pistis, Gianfranco, Mascelli, Giovanni
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population. To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study. Of the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14-36] vs 27 [18-38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p 
ISSN:1471-2261
1471-2261
DOI:10.1186/s12872-017-0524-3