Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page
Users Online:3334
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 152-159

Clinical outcomes with the use of ticagrelor or clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction – A prospective observational study


Department of Cardiology, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Sudarshan Kumar Vijay
Department of Cardiology, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow - 226 010, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/heartindia.heartindia_50_22

Rights and Permissions

Background: Thrombolytic therapy in the appropriate window period remains the most commonly used therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, despite the advantage of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over it. Use of newer more potent antiplatelets agents early after thrombolysis carries the chance of increasing bleeding complications, thus we planned to have a study to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor as compared to clopidogrel in thrombolysed patients. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective observational study in Indian patients. A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study with 76 in the ticagrelor group and 66 in the clopidogrel group. All patients received thrombolysis as the primary reperfusion strategy. Patients receiving either clopidogrel or ticagrelor after thrombolysis irrespective of the subsequent PCI status were followed up for any bleeding events (primary endpoints) as per thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) definition and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were also assessed as markers of efficacy and secondary endpoints. Results: Mean time from thrombolysis to study drug use was 18.9 ± 2.1 h in the ticagrelor group as compared to 14.8 ± 3.3 h in the clopidogrel group (P > 0.05). For major bleeding events (TIMI major), no statistically significant difference was observed between groups (2.6% in ticagrelor vs. 1.5% in clopidogrel) (P = 0.6). BARC 3–5 bleeding at 1-month follow-up was significantly higher in the ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). At 1-month follow-up, BARC 1–2 or 3–5 bleeding events in the subjects who underwent PCI were higher in the ticagrelor group than the clopidogrel group (P = 0.03). Patients in the clopidogrel group have more major adverse cardiac events than the ticagrelor group especially driven by more fatal and nonfatal MI in the clopidogrel group (P = 0.04). Conclusions: Ticagrelor can be safely administered in postthrombolytic patients similar to clopidogrel albeit at the cost of slightly increased minor bleeding events in short-term follow-up.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed198    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal