ObjectiveThe comparative efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear. We aimed to investigate the association of treatment with clinical outcomes.MethodsIn the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies) registry, all patients with MI treated with PCI and discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor from 2010 to 2016 were included. Outcomes were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, death, MI or stroke), individual components and bleeding. Multivariable adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to adjust for confounders.ResultsWe included 37 990 patients, 2073 in the prasugrel group and 35 917 in the ticagrelor group. Patients in the prasugrel group were younger, more often admitted with ST elevation MI and more likely to have diabetes. Six to twelve months after discharge, 20% of patients in each group discontinued the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor they received at discharge. The risk for MACCE did not significantly differ between prasugrel-treated and ticagrelor-treated patients (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24). We found no significant difference in the adjusted risk for death, recurrent MI or stroke alone between the two treatments. There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding with prasugrel versus ticagrelor (2.5% vs 3.2%, adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22). IPTW and PSM analyses confirmed the results.ConclusionIn patients with MI treated with PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar efficacy and safety during 1-year follow-up.

Introduction Potential benefit with potent platelet inhibition in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been discussed. The aim of this study was to compare a potent P2Y12 inhibition strategy using ticagrelor with clopidogrel, in CCS patients referred for coronary angiography (CA) and PCI if feasible. Methods In this retrospective real-world study, patients referred for outpatient CA due to suspected CCS were included. To adjust for group differences, a propensity score reflecting the probability of being treated with ticagrelor was calculated and added to the logistic regression outcome model. Results In total 1 003 patients were included in the primary analysis (577 treated with clopidogrel and 426 with ticagrelor). Among clopidogrel treated patients 132 (22.9%) experienced a bleeding complication compared with 93 (21.8%) among ticagrelor treated patients, with no significant difference between the groups (p=0.70). There was no difference in bleeding severity. Furthermore, we observed no statistically significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE [death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke]), (1.2% vs 2.3%, p=0.17). A subgroup analysis restricted to patients undergoing PCI ad hoc displayed a similar pattern. Also patients undergoing CA without PCI ad hoc frequently experienced a bleeding complication, with no difference between the two treatments (21.0 % vs 17.3%, p=0.27). Propensity score adjusted analyses confirmed the results. Discussion/Conclusion In patients with CCS referred for CA and PCI if feasible, a more potent P2Y12 inhibition strategy with ticagrelor was not associated with bleeding complications or MACE compared with clopidogrel.