| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Andell, Pontus, et al.
(författare)
-
Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease : An Analysis From the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980. ; 4:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experiencing acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are at high risk for clinical events. In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the primary endpoint of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke after ACS, but increased the incidence of dyspnea, which may lead clinicians to withhold ticagrelor from COPD patients. Methods and Results-In 18 624 patients with ACS randomized to treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, history of COPD was recorded in 1085 (5.8%). At 1 year, the primary endpoint occurred in 17.7% of patients with COPD versus 10.4% in those without COPD (P<0.001). The 1-year event rate for the primary endpoint in COPD patients treated with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel was 14.8% versus 20.6% (hazard ratio [HR]=0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.97), for death from any cause 8.4% versus 12.4% (HR=0.70; 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.04), and for PLATO-defined major bleeding rates at 1 year 14.6% versus 16.6% (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.17). Dyspnea occurred more frequently with ticagrelor (26.1% vs. 16.3%; HR=1.71; 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.30). There was no differential increase in the relative risk of dyspnea compared to non-COPD patients (HR=1.85). No COPD status-by-treatment interactions were found, showing consistency with the main trial results. Conclusions-In this post-hoc analysis, COPD patients experienced high rates of ischemic events. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced and substantially decreased the absolute risk of ischemic events (5.8%) in COPD patients, without increasing overall major bleeding events. The benefit-risk profile supports the use of ticagrelor in patients with ACS and concomitant COPD.
|
|
| 4. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).
|
|
