Ticagrelor vs. Prasugel: Similar Safety and Efficacy in Primary Angioplasty

prasugel vs ticagrelor angioplastyNo randomized head-to-head study comparing the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been carried out in the last 7 years since these newer P2Y12 inhibitors first showed a higher efficacy relative to clopidogrel.

 

This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty.

 

A total of 1230 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive one drug or the other; treatment begun before the procedure.

 

Nearly 4% of infarctions were in cardiogenic shock and 5.2% required mechanical ventilation.

 

The primary endpoint was defined as death, re-infarction, urgent revascularization, stroke, major bleeding or extended hospitalization (beyond 7 days).

 

This analysis presents data from the first 30 days, but the total follow-up planned is 1 year and will be completed by 2017.

 

The study was prematurely terminated due to the wide similarity between these drugs. The primary endpoint was 4% for prasugrel vs. 4.1% for ticagrelor (odds ratio [OR]: 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 1.73; p = 0.939). No significant difference was observed in any of the different components of the primary endpoint.

 

At 30 days, the secondary endpoint composed of cardiovascular death, non-fatal infarction, or stroke did not show any significant difference between these drugs (prasugrel 2.7% vs. ticagrelor 2.5%; OR: 1.06; p = 0.864).

 

Conclusion

This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor did not show any difference between these drugs regarding efficacy or safety in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty.

 

The rates of major events were similar, although with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. In consequence, these observations must be confirmed in a larger study.

 

Original title: Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study.

Reference: Motovska Z et al. Circulation. 2016 Nov 22;134(21):1603-1612.

 


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...