Safety of reloading prasugrel in addition to clopidogrel loading in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: American Journal of Cardiology. 111(6):841-5, 2013 Mar 15.PMID: 23273719Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Acute Coronary Syndrome/th [Therapy] | *Percutaneous Coronary Intervention | *Piperazines/ad [Administration & Dosage] | *Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/ad [Administration & Dosage] | *Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/ad [Administration & Dosage] | *Thiophenes/ad [Administration & Dosage] | *Ticlopidine/aa [Analogs & Derivatives] | Aspirin/ad [Administration & Dosage] | Chi-Square Distribution | Endpoint Determination | Female | Humans | Male | Middle Aged | Risk Factors | Statistics, Nonparametric | Ticlopidine/ad [Administration & Dosage] | Treatment OutcomeYear: 2013Local holdings: Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006ISSN:
  • 0002-9149
Name of journal: The American journal of cardiologyAbstract: Patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) commonly receive a loading dose of either clopidogrel or prasugrel, in addition to aspirin. The present study aimed to assess the safety of reloading prasugrel in patients who had initially received a loading dose of clopidogrel compared to prasugrel loading alone. The study included a cohort of 606 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome who had received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel before PCI. These patients were then categorized into clopidogrel preloading (300 or 600 mg) followed by prasugrel reloading (CP-load group, n = 90) and prasugrel loading only (P-load group, n = 516). Both groups received a 10-mg maintenance dose of prasugrel after PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding. The secondary end points were other in-hospital bleeding complications and major cardiovascular events. Patients in the CP-load group compared to the P-load group were younger, with lower rates of cardiovascular risk factors. Significantly more patients in the CP-load group presented with biomarker-positive myocardial infarction (80.0% vs 30.6%, p <=0.001) and cardiogenic shock (5.6% vs 1.4%, p = 0.022). No significant differences (p = NS) were seen in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major bleeding (2.6% vs 2.8%), Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (12.2% vs 7.0%), the need for blood transfusion (2.6% vs 2.1%), and vascular complications (1.3% vs 2.0%) between groups. The CP-load group experienced more in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (5.6% vs 1.6%, p = 0.031), urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (3.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.011), and longer hospital and intensive care unit stays. In conclusion, preloading with clopidogrel should not be prohibitive to reloading with prasugrel in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and undergoing PCI with respect to bleeding and vascular complications. Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.All authors: Chen F, Kent KM, Kitabata H, Loh JP, Pendyala LK, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Suddath WO, Torguson R, Waksman RFiscal year: FY2013Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2013-09-17
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 23273719 Available 23273719

Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - 2006

Patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) commonly receive a loading dose of either clopidogrel or prasugrel, in addition to aspirin. The present study aimed to assess the safety of reloading prasugrel in patients who had initially received a loading dose of clopidogrel compared to prasugrel loading alone. The study included a cohort of 606 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome who had received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel before PCI. These patients were then categorized into clopidogrel preloading (300 or 600 mg) followed by prasugrel reloading (CP-load group, n = 90) and prasugrel loading only (P-load group, n = 516). Both groups received a 10-mg maintenance dose of prasugrel after PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding. The secondary end points were other in-hospital bleeding complications and major cardiovascular events. Patients in the CP-load group compared to the P-load group were younger, with lower rates of cardiovascular risk factors. Significantly more patients in the CP-load group presented with biomarker-positive myocardial infarction (80.0% vs 30.6%, p <=0.001) and cardiogenic shock (5.6% vs 1.4%, p = 0.022). No significant differences (p = NS) were seen in Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major bleeding (2.6% vs 2.8%), Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (12.2% vs 7.0%), the need for blood transfusion (2.6% vs 2.1%), and vascular complications (1.3% vs 2.0%) between groups. The CP-load group experienced more in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (5.6% vs 1.6%, p = 0.031), urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (3.3% vs 0.2%, p = 0.011), and longer hospital and intensive care unit stays. In conclusion, preloading with clopidogrel should not be prohibitive to reloading with prasugrel in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and undergoing PCI with respect to bleeding and vascular complications. Copyright 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

English

Powered by Koha