| 1. |
- Navarese, Eliano P., et al.
(author)
-
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndrome Network Meta-Analysis of 52 816 Patients From 12 Randomized Trials
- 2020
-
In: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 142:2, s. 150-160
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: New randomized, controlled trials have become available on oral P2Y(12)inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome. We aimed to evaluate current evidence comparing the efficacy and safety profile of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis and direct pairwise comparison analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes from 12 randomized controlled trials including a total of 52 816 patients with acute coronary syndrome.Results: In comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92]) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]), whereas there was no statistically significant mortality reduction with prasugrel (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.80-1.01] and HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.02], respectively). In comparison with each other, there were no significant differences in mortality (HR prasugrel versus ticagrelor, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.94-1.29] and 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]). In comparison with clopidogrel, prasugrel reduced myocardial infarction (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]), whereas ticagrelor showed no risk reduction (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.22]). Differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not statistically significant. Stent thrombosis risk was significantly reduced by both ticagrelor and prasugrel versus clopidogrel (28%-50% range of reduction). In comparison with clopidogrel, both prasugrel (HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]) and ticagrelor (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.04-1.55]) significantly increased major bleeding. There were no significant differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor for all outcomes explored.Conclusions: Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ischemic events and increased bleeding in comparison with clopidogrel. A significant mortality reduction was observed with ticagrelor only. There was no efficacy and safety difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor.
|
|
| 2. |
- Tirziu, Daniela, et al.
(author)
-
Impact and Implications of Neurocognitive Dysfunction in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure
- 2023
-
In: Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. - 2772-9303. ; 2:6
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Neurocognitive dysfunction is common in heart failure (HF), with 30% to 80% of patients experiencing some degree of deficits in one or more cognitive domains, including memory, attention, learning ability, executive function, and psychomotor speed. Although the mechanism is not fully understood, reduced cardiac output, comorbidities, chronic cerebral hypoperfusion, and cardioembolic brain injury leading to cerebral hypoxia and brain damage seem to trigger the neurocognitive dysfunction in HF. Cognitive impairment is independently associated with worse outcomes including mortality, rehospitalization, and reduced quality of life. Patients with poorer cognitive function are at an increased risk of severe disease as they tend to have greater difficulty complying with treatment requirements. Coronary revascularization in patients with ischemic HF has the potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes but risks worsening neurocognitive dysfunction even further. Revascularization by coronary artery bypass grafting carries inherent risks for delirium, cognitive impairment, neurologic injury, and stroke, which are known to exacerbate the risk of neurocognitive dysfunction. Alternatively, percutaneous coronary intervention, as a less-invasive approach, has the potential to minimize the risk of cognitive impairment but has not yet been evaluated as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic HF. Therefore, it is paramount to raise awareness of the neurocognitive consequences in ischemic HF and devise strategies for recognition and prevention as an important target of patient management and personalized decision making that contributes to patient outcomes.
|
|
