Long-term use of clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Abstract

Background and objectivesTo compare the long-term clinical outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and DAPT with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who underwent coronary intervention.MethodsBetween November 2011 and December 2015, a total of 13,104 patients with AMI were enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH) registry. Among them, 4,696 patients who received DAPT for more than 24 months were categorized into two groups: the clopidogrel group (n = 4,053) and ticagrelor or prasugrel group (n = 643). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the bias due to confounding variables. Following PSM, the impacts of P2Y12 inhibitors on the clinical outcomes in both groups were compared during a 36-month clinical follow-up period.ResultsThere were no significant differences in clinical outcomes in terms of cardiac death (7.1% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.101), stroke (1.4% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.436), major bleeding (0.5% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.478), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (21.6% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.626), and net adverse cardiac event (NACE) (22.1% vs. 21.3%, p = 0.731) between the groups. The ticagrelor or prasugrel group had a lower incidence of recurrent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (12.2% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.006) than the clopidogrel group. However, no differences were observed in the cumulative incidences of 3-year NACE between the ticagrelor or prasugrel and clopidogrel groups.ConclusionsCumulative incidences of long-term NACE did not differ between the two groups. Therefore, the type and duration of DAPT should be customized for each patient with AMI.