4.4 Review

Aspirin, Clopidogrel, and Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 112, 期 5, 页码 737-745

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.04.055

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dual antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Ticagrelor, an oral, direct, reversibly binding, P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, is approved for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in adult patients with ACS. In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality compared with clopidogrel. A subanalysis of PLATO trial data identified a geographic region interaction (p = 0.045), indicating reduced efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in North American patients. This effect could be due to chance, but may be explained by an interaction of ticagrelor with high aspirin doses, which are commonly used in the United States. In patients taking low-dose maintenance aspirin, ticagrelor was more effective than clopidogrel in decreasing cardiovascular events regardless of the geographic region. A proposed hypothetical mechanism for the interaction between ticagrelor and higher aspirin dose is linked to the level of P2Y(12) inhibition and the potential prothrombotic effects of high-dose aspirin through the suppression of prostacyclin. A review of data regarding aspirin use for secondary prevention of events in ACS demonstrated that low aspirin doses (75 to 160 mg/day) are consistently favored for short- and long-term use because of the lack of a dose-response relationship between increasing aspirin dose and improved efficacy, and a higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding with increasing aspirin dose. The use of low aspirin doses reflects good clinical practice and is encouraged in current guidelines. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据