Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11054/993
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYudi, Matias B.*
dc.contributor.authorClark, David J.*
dc.contributor.authorFarouque, Omar*
dc.contributor.authorEccleston, David*
dc.contributor.authorAndrianopoulos, Nick*
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Stephen J.*
dc.contributor.authorBrennan, Angela*
dc.contributor.authorLefkovits, Jeffrey*
dc.contributor.authorRamchand, Jay*
dc.contributor.authorYip, Thomas*
dc.contributor.authorOqueli, Ernesto*
dc.contributor.authorReid, Christopher M.*
dc.contributor.authorAjani, Andrew E.*
dc.date.accessioned2017-02-19T22:58:17Z-
dc.date.available2017-02-19T22:58:17Z-
dc.date.issued2016en
dc.identifier.govdoc00974en
dc.identifier.issn1444-0903*
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11054/993-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). AIM: We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009-2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. RESULTS: For the period of 2009-2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice.en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2016-12-08T04:48:38Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma (gemmas@bhs.org.au) on 2017-02-19T22:58:17Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2017-02-19T22:58:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016en
dc.publisherRoyal Australasian College of Physiciansen
dc.titleClopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes undering percutaneous coronary intervention.en
dc.typeJournal Article*
dc.type.specifiedArticleen
dc.contributor.corpauthorMelbourne Interventional Groupen
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleInternal Medicine Journalen
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume46en
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue5en
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage559en
dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage565en
dc.publisher.placeSydney, NSWen
dc.subject.healththesaurusACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMEen
dc.subject.healththesaurusMYOCARDIAL INFARCTIONen
dc.subject.healththesaurusPERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTIONen
dc.date.issuedbrowse2016-01-01-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/imj.13041.en
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.