No abstract

Ticagrelor has been proved to be more effective than clopidogrel; however, little is known about the switching between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in real-world clinical practice. We assessed the prevalence, related factors, dose bridging, compliance, and short-term outcomes of in-hospital switching between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in consecutively recruited patients treated by ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 417 eligible patients administrated with ticagrelor in-hospital after PCI were recruited. Switching between ticagrelor and clopidogrel occurred in 362 (86.8%) patients, with 318 (76.3%) from clopidogrel to ticagrelor occurring mainly after PCI and 44 (10.6%) from ticagrelor to clopidogrel primarily at discharge. History of cerebrovascular disease, final diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome, left main disease, ostial lesion, co-administration with warfarin, CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles' carriage status, and ticagrelor-related dyspnoea emerged as related factors for the switching between clopidogrel and ticagrelor. Dose bridging between clopidogrel loading dose and ticagrelor maintenance dose (MD) was more frequent in patients switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor, while the bridging between ticagrelor MD and clopidogrel MD was more likely to occur in patients switched from ticagrelor to clopidogrel. At 6 month follow-up, poor compliance was observed in patients from clopidogrel to ticagrelor (64.8%) or treated only by ticagrelor (50.9%), but perfect compliance in patients from ticagrelor to clopidogrel (100%). After excluding the cases with incompliance, patients switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel had a relatively lower bleeding risk in comparison with patients with constant ticagrelor treatment and those switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor (29.5% vs. 50.0% vs. 46.6%, adjusted = 0.02). In-hospital switching between ticagrelor and clopidogrel is frequent in patients undergoing PCI. In comparison with constant ticagrelor treatment, switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in ischaemic high-risk patients confers similar antiplatelet efficacy and safety, while switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in ischaemic low-risk patients relates to lower hazard for bleeding events.

Background Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prevents ischemic events while increasing bleeding risk. Real‐world‐based metrics to accurately predict postdischarge bleeding (PDB) occurrence and its potential impact on postdischarge major cardiovascular event (MACE) remain undefined. This study sought to evaluate the impact of PDB on MACE occurrence, and to develop a score to predict PDB risk among Chinese acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients after PCI. Methods and Results From May 2014 to January 2016, 2496 ACS patients who underwent PCI were recruited consecutively from 29 nationally representative Chinese tertiary hospitals. Among 2,381 patients (95.4%, 2,381/2,496) who completed 1‐year follow‐up, the cumulative incidence of PDB (bleeding academic research consortium type [BARC] ≥2) and postdischarge MACE (a composite of all‐cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization) was 4.9% (n = 117) and 3.3% (n = 79), respectively. The association between PDB and MACE during 1‐year follow‐up, as well as the impact of DAPT with ticagrelor or clopidogrel on PDB were evaluated. PDB was associated with higher risk of postdischarge MACE (7.7 vs. 3.1%; adjusted hazard ratio: 2.59 [95% confidence interval: 1.17–5.74]; p = .02). For ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, PDB risk was higher (8.0 vs. 4.4%; 2.05 [1.17–3.60]; p = .01), while MACE risk was similar (2.0 vs. 3.4%; 0.70 [0.25–1.93]; p = .49). Based on identified PDB predictors, the constructed bleeding risk in real world Chinese acute coronary syndrome patients (BRIC‐ACS) score for PDB was established. C‐statistic for the score for PDB was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62–0.73) in the overall cohort, and >0.70 in subgroups with non‐ST‐ and ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, diabetes and receiving more than two drug eluting stents. Conclusions In Chinese ACS patients, PDB with BARC ≥2 was associated with higher risk for MACE after PCI. The constructed BRIC‐ACS risk score provides a useful tool for PDB discrimination, particularly among high ischemic and bleeding risk patients.

The performance of the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) and ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy) risk scores for the prediction of major bleeding in ticagrelor-treated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. The aim of the present study is to validate the performance of both scores in a contemporary Chinese cohort of ACS patients hospitalized for PCI and administrated with ticagrelor. From January 2013 to December 2014, a total of 629 ticagrelor-treated ACS patients who underwent PCI were recruited consecutively. The overall rate of major bleeding defined by the BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) criteria was 1.7%. This incidence increased with the risk category of both the CRUSADE (very low, 0.6%; low, 1.3%; moderate, 1.1%; high, 7.0%; and very high, 13.0%; = 0.001) and the ACUITY score (low, 0.6%; moderate, 1.4%; high, 4.9%; and very high, 7.0%; = 0.003). The CRUSADE score demonstrated adequate calibration and discriminatory capacity for the patients as a whole (HL- [Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test -value]>0.3; AUC [area under the curve]: 0.78), with the excellent performance in the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, men, diabetes and those implanted with more than two DESs (AUC: 0.85, 0.80, 0.93 and 0.93, respectively). For the ACUITY score, adequate calibration and discriminatory capacity could be observed for the whole patients (HL- > 0.3; AUC: 0.78), with excellent performance for the patients with diabetes or those implanted with more than two DESs (AUC: 0.90 and 0.97, respectively). In conclusion, both CRUSADE and ACUITY risk scores performed adequate discriminatory power for the prediction of major bleeding within 30 days in ticagrelor-treated ACS patients who underwent PCI.