ArticleEuropean heart journal2022
Comparative effects of guided vs. potent P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials.
Article in European heart journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
60 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progress in the treatment of diabetic cardiomyopathy, a systematic review.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy and technical characteristics of CYP2C19 point of care tests: a systematic review.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Pooled it
- Mortality of Escalation and Modulation Antithrombotic Therapy in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Pooled it
- De-Escalation Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Prevail over Potent P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergone Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Network Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Abatement of potent P2Y12 antagonist-based dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Cost analysis of CYP2C19 genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention patients.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2024Trial
- Genetic-Guided Oral P2YJACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2023Trial
- Residual cardiovascular risk in coronary artery disease: from pathophysiology to established and novel therapies.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- ST-elevation myocardial infarction following de-escalation to aspirin monotherapy: evidence of residual platelet function MRP4 overexpression dependent case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- 2025 Acute Coronary Syndrome Guideline: Missing the Boat onJournal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Limited Visibility and Perception of the Clinical Relevance of Clopidogrel Pharmacogenetics in Cardiology Literature.Clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Precision percutaneous coronary intervention.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Review
- Optimizing pharmacogenomic clinical decision support: a usability study of epic's Genomic-Indicators.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- The Impact of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Guided by Platelet Function Testing on the Prognosis of Patients With Dual High-Risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-related variations in platelet reactivity in presence or absence of antiplatelet therapy.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of implementing a genotype-guided de-escalation strategy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Observational
- Intervention, improved prevention, imaging, inflammation, and innovation: the five I's cardiovascular highlights inEuropean heart journal open · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor based on the ABCD-GENE score in acute coronary syndrome patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Pharmacogenetics: Opportunities for theAnnual review of pharmacology and toxicology · 2025Review
- Interindividual variability in platelet reactivity among individuals with or without antiplatelet therapy: results from a large tertiary care hospital.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 12 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimsGuidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. METHODS AND
resultsWe performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96-1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments.
conclusionIn patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603). KEY QUESTION: A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored. KEY FINDING: In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.