4.7 Article

Clopidogrel pre-treatment in stable angina: for all patients > 6 h before elective coronary angiography or only for angiographically selected patients a few minutes before PCI? A randomized multicentre trial PRAGUE-8

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1495-1503

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn169

关键词

elective percutaneous coronary intervention; clopidogrel pre-treatment; stable coronary artery disease; bleeding complications; periprocedural ischaemic complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To compare two different clopidogrel regimens on the outcomes of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (CAG)+/- ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Open-trial randomized 1028 patients with stable angina to group A ('non-selective'-clopidogrel 600 mg > 6 h before CAG; n = 513) or group B ('selective'-clopidogrel 600 mg in the cath-lab after CAG, only in case of PCI; n = 515). Combined primary endpoint was death/periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke/re-intervention within 7 days. Secondary endpoints were troponin elevation and bleeding complications. Primary endpoint occurred in 0.8% group A patients vs. 1% group B (P = 0.749; 90% CI for the percentage difference -1.2-0.8). Periprocedural troponin elevation (> 3x ULN) was detected in 2.6% group A vs. 3.3% group B (P = 0.475; 90% CI -2.5-1.0). Bleeding complications occurred in 3.5% group A patients vs. 1.4% group B (P = 0.025). After adjustment for covariates and factors that may influence the bleeding risk, patients in group A were shown to have more likely bleeding complications when compared with group B (OR = 3.03; 95% CI 1.14-8.10; P = 0.027). Conclusion High (600 mg) loading dose of clopidogrel before elective CAG increased the risk of minor bleeding complications, while the benefit on periprocedural infarction was not significant. Clopidogrel can be given safely in the catheterization laboratory between CAG and PCI in chronic stable angina patients.

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

4.7
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