Search

Background/aim: We studied clinical outcomes and discontinuation rates in a 'real-world' population presenting with myocardial infarction treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel., Methods: Between January 2012 and May 2015, 992 patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing invasive management and adequately pre-treated with dual antiplatelet therapy were prospectively enrolled. Platelet aggregation was measured using the Multiplate analyser. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital outcomes and 1-year outcomes were collected., Results: Patients treated with ticagrelor were younger and less likely to be diabetic, have a previous myocardial infarction or present with a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (all P < 0.05). Those treated with ticagrelor also had lower CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines; 20 ± 9.4 vs 23 ± 10.1, P < 0.0001) and GRACE (119 ± 28 vs 126 ± 32, P = 0.002) scores. High platelet reactivity was greatly reduced with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel (16.1% vs 37.0%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Non-coronary artery bypass grafting-related thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major and minor bleeding occurred at similar rates in those treated with ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Rates of drug discontinuation in those treated with ticagrelor and clopidogrel were similar in hospital (20.2% vs 16.2%, P = 0.18) and between discharge and 1 year (29.9% vs 27.9%, P = 0.63). However, discontinuation due to dyspnoea, (3.3% vs 0%, P < 0.0001) and discontinuation due to any possible drug-related adverse event (9.3% vs 2.2%, P = 0.0001) was more common in those treated with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor is paradoxically being used in lower-risk patients rather than those most likely to benefit. Ticagrelor was associated with similar rates of bleeding but higher discontinuation rates due to adverse effects compared to clopidogrel., (© 2017 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Introduction: This study examined the ability of two widely used "point of care" platelet function assays, VerifyNow and Multiplate, to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Methods: We examined platelet reactivity using VerifyNow and Multiplate P2Y 12 assays in patients with ACS and the relationship between platelet reactivity and both MACE (defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis and unplanned revascularisation) and TIMI major bleeding at 1year., Results: In 619 ACS patients, 65 patients (10.5%) had experienced MACE at 1year and 6 patients (1%) had TIMI major bleeding events. The two measures of platelet reactivity were only moderately correlated (Rho=0.43, p=0.0001). Both measures demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with MACE, with area under the curve for VerifyNow of 0.632 (0.001) and for Multiplate of 0.577 (p=0.04), and neither measure showed a significant relationship with bleeding. Logistic regression analysis found that only VerifyNow was a statistical predictor of MACE (p=0.01). MACE occurred in 16% of those classified as having HPR using VerifyNow compared to 7% in those without HPR (odds ratio of 2.6 (95% CI 1.5-4.4, p=0.001). In those classified as having HPR by the Multiplate assay, MACE occurred in 13% compared to 9% of those without HPR (Odds ratio 1.5 95% CI 0.9-2.5, p=0.11)., Conclusion: The two points of care platelet function tests examined in this study were only moderately correlated. The VerifyNow assay demonstrated a stronger relationship to MACE than the Multiplate assay., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)