Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29170875›Full record

Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2018

Long-term pharmacodynamic effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients undergoing early PCI.

Andrew Yang, Quin Pon, Andrea Lavoie, Jennifer J Crawford, Sebastian Harenberg, Rodney H Zimmermann, Jeff Booker, Sheila Kelly, Shahar Lavi, Warren J Cantor and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A Review of the Role of the Antiplatelet Drug Ticagrelor in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome, Acute Thrombotic Disease, and Other Diseases.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Andrew YangPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Quin PonPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Andrea LavoiePrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Jennifer J CrawfordPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Sebastian HarenbergPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Rodney H ZimmermannPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Jeff BookerPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Sheila KellyPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada.
Shahar LaviLondon Health Sciences, University of London, London, ON, Canada.
Warren J CantorSouthlake Regional Health Centre, University of Toronto, Newmarket, ON, Canada.
Shamir R MehtaHamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Akshay BagaiTerrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shaun G GoodmanTerrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Asim N CheemaTerrence Donnelly Heart Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Payam DehghaniPrairie Vascular Research Network and Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, University of Saskatchewan, Regina General Hospital Unit 3A (CCU), Interventional Cardiology Research Office 1440-14th Ave., Regina, SK, Canada. pdehghani@mac.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The long-term pharmacodynamic effects of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after fibrinolytic therapy is unknown. From May 2014 to August 2016, 212 patients undergoing PCI within 24 h of Tenecteplase (TNK), Aspirin, and Clopidogrel for ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized at four Canadian sites to receive additional Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor initiated prior to PCI. The platelet reactivity units (PRU) were measured with the VerifyNow Assay before study drug administration (baseline), at 4 and 24 h post PCI, and follow-up appointment. A mixed-model analysis with time as the repeated measure and drug as the between-subjects factor was calculated using 2 separate 1 × 4 ANOVAs, with students t-tests used to compare drugs within each time point. Complete clinical follow-up data (median 115.0 days; IQR 80.3-168.8) was available in 50 patients (23.6%) randomized to either Clopidogrel (n = 23) or Ticagrelor (n = 27). Analyses revealed significant decreases in PRU from baseline to 4 h (261.4 vs. 71.7; Mdiff = - 189.7; p < 0.001) to 24 h (71.7 vs. 27.7; Mdiff = - 44.0; p < 0.001) to end of follow-up (27.7 vs.17.9; Mdiff = - 9.9. p = 0.016) for those randomized to Ticagrelor and significant decreases in PRU only from baseline to 4 h (271.3 vs. 200.8; Mdiff = - 70.5, p = < 0.001) in patients receiving Clopidogrel, and a significantly greater proportion of patients with adequate platelet inhibition (PRU < 208) on long-term follow-up (Clopidogrel, 82.6% vs. Ticagrelor, 100.0%; p = 0.038). Our results demonstrate that in patients undergoing PCI within 24 h of fibrinolysis for STEMI, Ticagrelor provides prolonged platelet inhibition compared with Clopidogrel.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAdenosineAgedClopidogrelFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionThrombolytic TherapyTicagrelorTiclopidineTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAdenosineClopidogrelPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTicagrelorTiclopidineClopidogrelFibrinolysisMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionPlatelet reactivityTicagrelor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.