Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Current guidelines recommend clopidogrel in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet the comparative benefits are unclear. Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in p...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Autores principales: Pinedo-Avila, Johann Bill, Valera-Cabrera, Jessica Lucia, Avalos-Rodríguez, Ana, Fernández-Poma, Sarita Milagros, Castro, Carlos Enrique Martínez, Cañote, Renzo G., Chocce, Karina, Taype-Rondán, Álvaro Renzo, Soriano Moreno, David
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:inglés
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc 2025
Materias:
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary
Chronic Coronary Syndrome
Platelet aggregation inhibitors
coronary artery disease
Clopidogrel
Ticagrelor
Angioplasty
Balloon
Coronary
Acceso en línea:Enlace permanente (DOI o Handle)
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Sumario:Background Current guidelines recommend clopidogrel in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet the comparative benefits are unclear. Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with CCS undergoing PCI. Methods We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases from inception to February 15, 2025. We included parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with CCS undergoing PCI, where the intervention group received ticagrelor as maintenance therapy and the control group received clopidogrel. Primary outcomes included all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, quality of life, heart failure, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), revascularization, and adverse events. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently. We determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results We included nine RCTs, with 3370 patients. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor probably results in no important difference in cardiovascular mortality and hospital stay; may not have an important effect on stroke and/or TIA; and may not have an important effect on all‐cause mortality, heart failure, and revascularization, but the evidence is very uncertain. Additionally, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on myocardial infarction. Regarding safety outcomes, ticagrelor probably results in no important difference in major bleeding, minor bleeding, any bleeding, or dyspnea. However, it probably increases the risk of chest pain/tightness ( + 7.5 per 100; 95% CI: +1.4 to +21.7). Conclusion In patients with CCS undergoing PCI, ticagrelor probably has a similar efficacy and safety to clopidogrel in most cardiovascular outcomes. However, it probably increases the risk of chest pain/tightness.

Ejemplares similares