Association Of Ticagrelor Vs Clopidogrel With Net Adverse Clinical Events In Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Importance Current guidelines recommend ticagrelor as the preferred P2Y12 platelet inhibitor for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), primarily based on a single large randomized clinical trial. The benefits and risks associated with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in routine practice merits attention. Objective To determine the association of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel with ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ACS in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI and received ticagrelor or clopidogrel was conducted using 2 United States electronic health record-based databases and 1 nationwide South Korean database from November 2011 to March 2019. Patients were matched using a large-scale propensity score algorithm, and the date of final follow-up was March 2019. Exposures Ticagrelor vs clopidogrel. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 12 months, composed of ischemic events (recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, or ischemic stroke) and hemorrhagic events (hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding). Secondary outcomes included NACE or mortality, all-cause mortality, ischemic events, hemorrhagic events, individual components of the primary outcome, and dyspnea at 12 months. The database-level hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled to calculate summary HRs by random-effects meta-analysis. Results After propensity score matching among 31 290 propensity-matched pairs (median age group, 60-64 years; 29.3% women), 95.5% of patients took aspirin together with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The 1-year risk of NACE was not significantly different between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (15.1% [3484/23 116 person-years] vs 14.6% [3290/22 587 person-years]; summary HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.10]; P = .06). There was also no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (2.0% for ticagrelor vs 2.1% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.81-1.16]; P = .74) or ischemic events (13.5% for ticagrelor vs 13.4% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; P = .32). The risks of hemorrhagic events (2.1% for ticagrelor vs 1.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.13-1.61]; P = .001) and dyspnea (27.3% for ticagrelor vs 22.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.26]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the ticagrelor group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with ACS who underwent PCI in routine clinical practice, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with significant difference in the risk of NACE at 12 months. Because the possibility of unmeasured confounders cannot be excluded, further research is needed to determine whether ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in this setting.This cohort study compares net risk for ischemic vs hemorrhagic events at 12 months among patients treated with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Question For patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, associated with better outcomes in routine clinical practice? Findings In a retrospective cohort study that included 62 580 propensity score-matched patients, ticagrelor use, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with statistically significant difference in the risk of net clinical adverse events (defined as recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding) at 12 months (hazard ratio, 1.05). Meaning Ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with better outcomes for patients with ACS treated with PCI in clinical practice.