4.6 Article

Cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome patients with peripheral arterial disease treated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel: Data from the PLATO Trial

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 734-742

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/2047487314533215

Keywords

Peripheral artery disease; acute coronary syndrome; ticagrelor

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims To determine the effect of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Methods and results PLATO (n=18,624) was a multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial in ACS, that showed a 16% reduction in cardiovascular death (CV-death), myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel, without significant increase in overall major bleeding. We performed a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in PLATO according to reported PAD status at baseline. At one year, CV death, MI or stroke occurred in 19.3% of patients with PAD (n=1144) compared to 10.2% in patients without PAD (p<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier one year event rate for the primary endpoint of CV death, MI or stroke in PAD patients treated with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel, was 18% vs 20.6% (HR: 0.85 95% CI 0.64-1.11; for PAD status by treatment interaction, p=0.99) and for death from any cause 8.7% vs 11.9%, (HR: 0.74 95% CI 0.50-1.08; interaction p=0.73). PLATO-defined major bleeding event rates at one year were 14.8% for ticagrelor compared to 17.9% for clopidogrel, (HR: 0.81 95% CI 0.59-1.10; interaction p=0.09). Conclusion PAD patients have a high rate of ischaemic and bleeding events post ACS. The reduction of CV death, MI or stroke with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in PAD patients was consistent with the overall trial result although it did not reach statistical significance. Overall major bleeding was similar between the therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available