Background： There was still conflict on the antithrombotic advantage of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among East Asian population with acute coronary syndrome （ACS）. We considered that the baseline bleeding risk mi...Background： There was still conflict on the antithrombotic advantage of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among East Asian population with acute coronary syndrome （ACS）. We considered that the baseline bleeding risk might be an undetected key factor that significantly affected the efficacy of ticagrelor. Methods： A total of 20,816 serial patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） from October 20l 1 to August 2014 in the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region were enrolled in the present study. Patients receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel were further subdivided according to basic bleeding risk. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events （NACEs） defined as major adverse cardiac or cerebral events （MACCE, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke） and any bleeding during l-year lbllow-up. Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel was adjusted by propensity score matching （PSM）. Results： Among the 20,816 eligible PCI patients who were included in this study, there were 1578 and 779 patients in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively, alter PSM, their clinical parameters were well matched. Patients receiving ticagrelor showed comparable NACE risk compared with those treated by c[opidogrel （5.3% vs. 5. I%, P = 0.842）. Furthermore, ticagrelor might reduce the MACCE risk in patients with low bleeding risk but increase MACCE in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential （ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, low bleeding risk： 2.5% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.022： moderate-to-high bleeding risk： 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P =0.225; interaction P = 0.021）, with vast differences in all bleeding （low bleeding risk： 1.5% vs. 0.8%, P =0.210： moderate-to-high bleeding risk： 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.002; interaction P- 0.296）.Conclusion： Among real-world Chinese patients with ACS treated by PCI, ticagrelor only showed superior efficacy in patients with low bleeding risk but lost its advantage in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential.展开更多
目的:探讨双联抗血小板治疗合并上消化道出血(upper gastrointestinal bleeding,UGIB)的危险因素,为相关的预防策略的制定提供依据.方法:收集天津市第四中心医院2010-01/2013-12收治的双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB住院患者59例为观察组,随...目的:探讨双联抗血小板治疗合并上消化道出血(upper gastrointestinal bleeding,UGIB)的危险因素,为相关的预防策略的制定提供依据.方法:收集天津市第四中心医院2010-01/2013-12收治的双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB住院患者59例为观察组,随机选取同期双抗血小板治疗的冠心病而无UGIB患者240例作为对照组,经Logistic回归分析,确定相应的危险性因素.结果:经L o g i s t i c回归分析结果显示:急性冠脉综合征(O R=3.47,95%C I:1.77-6.81)、UGIB病史(OR=8.93,95%CI:1.72-46.39)、消化性溃疡病史(O R=4.19,95%C I:1.67-10.72)、慢性肾功能不全(O R=5.19,95%C I:1.49-18.03)和幽门螺杆菌(Helicobacter pylori,H.pylori)(OR=6.67,95%C I:3.02-14.73)是双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB的危险因素,质子泵抑制剂可以降低出血风险.结论:UGIB病史、消化性溃疡史、急性冠脉综合征、慢性肾功能不全和H.pylori是双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB的危险因素,质子泵抑制剂可以降低出血风险.临床工作中应注意识别UGIB高危因素,预防UGIB发生.展开更多
文摘Background： There was still conflict on the antithrombotic advantage of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among East Asian population with acute coronary syndrome （ACS）. We considered that the baseline bleeding risk might be an undetected key factor that significantly affected the efficacy of ticagrelor. Methods： A total of 20,816 serial patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI） from October 20l 1 to August 2014 in the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region were enrolled in the present study. Patients receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel were further subdivided according to basic bleeding risk. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events （NACEs） defined as major adverse cardiac or cerebral events （MACCE, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke） and any bleeding during l-year lbllow-up. Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel was adjusted by propensity score matching （PSM）. Results： Among the 20,816 eligible PCI patients who were included in this study, there were 1578 and 779 patients in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively, alter PSM, their clinical parameters were well matched. Patients receiving ticagrelor showed comparable NACE risk compared with those treated by c[opidogrel （5.3% vs. 5. I%, P = 0.842）. Furthermore, ticagrelor might reduce the MACCE risk in patients with low bleeding risk but increase MACCE in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential （ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, low bleeding risk： 2.5% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.022： moderate-to-high bleeding risk： 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P =0.225; interaction P = 0.021）, with vast differences in all bleeding （low bleeding risk： 1.5% vs. 0.8%, P =0.210： moderate-to-high bleeding risk： 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.002; interaction P- 0.296）.Conclusion： Among real-world Chinese patients with ACS treated by PCI, ticagrelor only showed superior efficacy in patients with low bleeding risk but lost its advantage in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential.
文摘目的:探讨双联抗血小板治疗合并上消化道出血(upper gastrointestinal bleeding,UGIB)的危险因素,为相关的预防策略的制定提供依据.方法:收集天津市第四中心医院2010-01/2013-12收治的双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB住院患者59例为观察组,随机选取同期双抗血小板治疗的冠心病而无UGIB患者240例作为对照组,经Logistic回归分析,确定相应的危险性因素.结果:经L o g i s t i c回归分析结果显示:急性冠脉综合征(O R=3.47,95%C I:1.77-6.81)、UGIB病史(OR=8.93,95%CI:1.72-46.39)、消化性溃疡病史(O R=4.19,95%C I:1.67-10.72)、慢性肾功能不全(O R=5.19,95%C I:1.49-18.03)和幽门螺杆菌(Helicobacter pylori,H.pylori)(OR=6.67,95%C I:3.02-14.73)是双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB的危险因素,质子泵抑制剂可以降低出血风险.结论:UGIB病史、消化性溃疡史、急性冠脉综合征、慢性肾功能不全和H.pylori是双联抗血小板治疗合并UGIB的危险因素,质子泵抑制剂可以降低出血风险.临床工作中应注意识别UGIB高危因素,预防UGIB发生.
