Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Heart Journal Open logoLink to European Heart Journal Open
. 2023 Dec 14;4(1):oead134. doi: 10.1093/ehjopen/oead134

Ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction

Sissel J Godtfredsen 1, Kristian H Kragholm 2, Anna Meta Dyrvig Kristensen 3, Tarek Bekfani 4, Rikke Sørensen 5, Maurizio Sessa 6, Christian Torp-Pedersen 7, Deepak L Bhatt 8, Manan Pareek 9,10,✉,b
Editor: Salvatore De Rosa
PMCID: PMC10763543  PMID: 38174346

Abstract

Aims

The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI) have not been established.

Methods and results

This was a nationwide cohort study of patients on OAC for AF who underwent PCI for MI from 2011 through 2019 and were prescribed a P2Y12 inhibitor at discharge. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat revascularization. The primary safety outcome was cerebral, gastrointestinal, or urogenital bleeding requiring hospitalization. Absolute and relative risks for outcomes at 1 year were calculated through multivariable logistic regression with average treatment effect modelling. Outcomes were standardized for the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as type of OAC, aspirin, and proton pump inhibitor use. We included 2259 patients of whom 1918 (84.9%) were prescribed clopidogrel and 341 (15.1%) ticagrelor or prasugrel. The standardized risk of MACE was significantly lower in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group compared with the clopidogrel group (standardized absolute risk, 16.3% vs. 19.4%; relative risk, 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.98; P = 0.02), while the risk of bleeding did not differ (standardized absolute risk, 5.5% vs. 5.1%; relative risk, 1.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.73–1.41; P = 0.69).

Conclusion

In patients with AF on OAC who underwent PCI for MI, treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel was associated with reduced ischaemic risk, without a concomitantly increased bleeding risk.

Keywords: Myocardial infarction, Atrial fibrillation, Triple antithrombotic therapy, Double antithrombotic therapy, P2Y12 inhibitor

Graphical Abstract

Graphical abstract.

Graphical abstract

Open in a new tab

Introduction

Coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist, and the concomitant presence of both conditions is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.1,2 In addition, AF is an independent, modifiable risk factor for ischaemic stroke.3 Even though the AF population is heterogeneous in terms of annual stroke risk (ranging from 2 to 10%), more than 80% of patients with AF are treated with oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC).4–8 While the benefit of OAC for stroke prevention is clear, risk factors for stroke overlap with those for bleeding events, and bleeding risk is further increased by OAC.9,10

Twelve months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is the recommended treatment in most patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).11,12 The randomized Platelet Inhibition and Platelet Outcomes (PLATO) and Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38) trials established the superiority of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, in reducing the risk of recurrent ischaemic events in patients with ACS.13,14 However, the greater potency of ticagrelor and prasugrel came at the expense of an increased bleeding risk, and both trials excluded patients in whom concomitant OAC was indicated. Moreover, the far majority of participants included in the randomized trials of double therapy (OAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor) or triple therapy (OAC plus dual antiplatelet therapy) in the setting of AF and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease received clopidogrel instead of one of the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors.15–18 As a result, contemporary guidelines recommend clopidogrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients with AF and ACS treated with PCI.12

Considering the limited amount of data in the field, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients with a history of AF who were admitted with myocardial infarction (MI) and underwent PCI.

Methods

Study design and data sources

We performed a registry-based, nationwide study including data from (i) the Registry of Causes of Death, which holds information on death since 1970;19 (ii) the Danish National Prescription Registry, which contains information on all filled prescriptions since 1995 sorted by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) codes;20 and (iii) the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR), which contains information on all hospital admissions, discharge diagnoses, and procedure codes using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system and the Nordic Medico Statistical Committee (NOMESCO) classification since 1978.21 The databases were linked on an individual level through an encrypted Civil Personal Registry (CPR) number on a Statistics Denmark server.

Setting

We included patients at least 18 years of age who (i) had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and were treated with an OAC, (ii) were hospitalized for a first-time acute MI from 1 January 2011 through 31 December 2019, (iii) underwent PCI within 7 days of admission, and (iv) claimed a prescription for clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel within 30 days of discharge. We excluded patients who were treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor prior to admission. Figure 1 summarizes the study selection process. The index date was defined as the day of the first claimed prescription for a P2Y12 inhibitor.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart illustrating selection of the study population. MI, myocardial infarction; P2Y12i, P2Y12 inhibitor; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; AF, atrial fibrillation; OAC, oral anticoagulation; DNPR, the Danish National Patient Registry.

We included comorbidities documented up to 10 years prior to index hospitalization using DNPR discharge and outpatient diagnoses. A list of included comorbidities and their definition by the ICD, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes, procedure codes, and/or ATC codes is included in Supplementary material online, Table S1. Diabetes mellitus and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were defined as either DNPR diagnoses (up to 10 years prior) or through claim of an antidiabetic or either an anticholinergic or anticholinergic/antiadrenergic drug, respectively, within 180 days of index hospitalization. Hypertension was defined as either an ICD-10 diagnosis or by ≥2 claims of ≥2 antihypertensive drugs within two consecutive quarters no more than 5 years prior to index hospitalization.22

Claimed prescriptions of aspirin, proton pump inhibitors (PPI), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) ≤ 180 days of index hospitalization were tracked as well.

Proportion of days covered (PDC) was employed as a measure of adherence to P2Y12 inhibitor, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), and aspirin treatment, respectively.23 Proportion of days covered was defined as the proportion of days an individual had access to the medication divided by the number of days during the period of interest. Proportion of days covered was calculated based on filled prescriptions during the follow-up period,24 except for aspirin for which the PDC period was set to 30 days. Per convention, adherence was defined as PDC > 80%, while a patient with PDC < 80% was considered nonadherent.24,25 Due to differences in dosing regimen, PDC for ticagrelor and prasugrel was calculated separately. Adherence to vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment is generally evaluated as the time in therapeutic range measured by international normalized ratio (INR). Unfortunately, the Danish registries do not contain complete INR data on all participants throughout the study period. Therefore, adherence to VKA treatment was reported as next filled prescription after index event.

Outcomes

The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat revascularization at 12 months (see Supplementary material online, Table S2). The primary safety outcome was bleeding events requiring hospitalization. Bleeding events included cerebral, gastrointestinal, and urogenital bleeding.

Secondary outcomes included the individual components of MACE; a MACE outcome including cardiovascular death; the individual bleeding outcomes; net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as death from any cause, stroke, recurrent MI, or bleeding events requiring hospitalization; and a MACE outcome without repeat revascularization defined as all-cause death, MI, or stroke.

To increase the probability of the outcomes being truly related to the exposure, we employed a falsification outcome analysis including an endpoint presumed unrelated to the treatment.26 The falsification endpoint was a composite of hospitalizations for falls, most common fractures in the age group (humeral, radial, fingers, and femoral), dehydration, and acute kidney injury (see Supplementary material online, Table S2).

A blanking period of 30 days was employed for all outcomes except stroke to ensure the outcomes were independent of the index event.

Statistical methods

Continuous variables were presented as medians (first to third quartiles, Q1–Q3) and compared across groups with the Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables were shown as counts and percentages and compared across groups using Pearson’s χ2 test. Due to regulations of Statistics Denmark, absolute numbers of either 1 or 2 were reported as not applicable (NA).

Because of a low number of patients claiming a prescription for prasugrel, we combined patients treated with ticagrelor and prasugrel into one group. Therefore, the two study groups comprised a clopidogrel group and a ticagrelor or prasugrel group.

Absolute and relative risks for outcomes were estimated using multivariable logistic regression with average treatment effect modelling (G-formula).27 This method aims to create a more uniform comparison of treatment groups by equal distribution of factors with a potential impact on outcomes. The primary efficacy outcome was standardized to the distribution of the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score [heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack/venous thromboembolism, sex (Supplementary material online, Table S1)], type of OAC treatment (DOAC or VKA), and claimed prescriptions for aspirin. As a diagnosis of MI was a mandatory inclusion criterion, all patients scored at least 1 point in the vascular disease item of the CHA2DS2-VASc score. The primary safety outcome was standardized to the available, individual components of the HAS-BLED score [hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior bleeding requiring hospitalization, medication predisposing to bleeding (NSAID and aspirin), and excess alcohol use (Supplementary material online, Table S1)], sex, type of OAC, and concomitant treatment with PPI.

A sensitivity analysis with a χ2 test was performed to evaluate if a causal relationship between claim of a prescription for aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor group existed. A two-sided P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

SAS version 9.4 (SAS institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for data management and RStudio, version 4.0.3 (https://www.r-project.org/), for statistical analysis.

Ethics

Data access and use of the Statistics Denmark server were approved by the appropriate data responsible unit in the Capital Region of Denmark (approval number P-2019-403).

Results

Patients and characteristics

Between 2011 and 2019, 2259 patients with AF treated with OAC were admitted for first-time MI, treated with PCI, and claimed a prescription for P2Y12 inhibitor after discharge. Of these, 1918 patients claimed a prescription for clopidogrel, 303 for ticagrelor, and 38 for prasugrel. Patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel were combined into 1 group comprising 341 individuals.

Median age was 74 years (Q1–Q3: 67–81) in the clopidogrel group and 70 years (Q1–Q3: 62–77) in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group. Women comprised 24.0% of the ticagrelor group and 29.2% of the ticagrelor or prasugrel group. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to have known coronary artery disease, hypertension, and had a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score. Population characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Concomitant PPI treatment was also more likely in the clopidogrel group. Prescription medications at discharge are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and post-discharge medication stratified by treatment group

Clopidogrel
(n = 1918)		 Ticagrelor or prasugrel
(n = 341)		 P-value
Age, years [median (Q1–Q3)] 74 (67, 81) 70 (62, 77) <0.001
Women 560 (29.2%) 82 (24.0%) 0.06
Coronary artery disease 184 (9.6%) 19 (5.6%) 0.02
Peripheral artery disease 128 (6.7%) 16 (4.7%) 0.21
Hypertension 1186 (61.8%) 168 (49.3%) <0.001
Diabetes 315 (16.4%) 55 (16.1%) 0.95
COPD 171 (8.9%) 32 (9.4%) 0.86
Heart failure 156 (8.1%) 31 (9.1%) 0.63
Ischaemic stroke 119 (6.2%) 15 (4.4%) 0.24
Chronic kidney disease 44 (2.3%) 4 (1.2%) 0.26
Cancer 162 (8.4%) 25 (7.3%) 0.56
CHA2DS2-VASc score [median (IQR)] 4 (3, 5) 3 (2, 4) <0.001
HAS-BLED score [median (IQR)] 2 (1, 3) 2 (1, 2) 0.001
Direct oral anticoagulant 1137 (59.3) 100 (29.3) <0.001
Aspirin 1370 (71.4%) 259 (76.0%) 0.09
PPI 918 (47.9%) 116 (34.0%) <0.001
Open in a new tab

COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IQR, interquartile range; PPI, proton pump inhibitor.

Primary efficacy outcome

Standardized absolute risks of MACE at 12 months were 19.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.8–21.1] for clopidogrel and 16.3% (95% CI, 13.5–19.0) for ticagrelor or prasugrel (Figure 2). The standardized relative risk was 0.84 (95% CI 0.70–0.98, P = 0.02) for ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (Figure 3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Standardized absolute risk of primary efficacy (major adverse cardiovascular events) and safety (bleeding events requiring hospitalizations) outcomes at 12 months stratified by treatment group (clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor or prasugrel). C, clopidogrel; T/P, ticagrelor/prasugrel.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Standardized relative risk of primary efficacy (major adverse cardiovascular events) and safety (bleeding events requiring hospitalizations) outcomes at 12 months comparing the two treatment groups (ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel).

Primary safety outcome

The standardized absolute risks of bleeding were 5.1% (95% CI, 4.2–6.0) for clopidogrel and 5.5% (95% CI 3.6–7.4) for ticagrelor or prasugrel, respectively (Figure 2). The standardized relative risk was 1.07 (95% CI 0.73–1.41, P = 0.69) for ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (Figure 3).

Falsification outcome

The standardized absolute risks of the composite of common causes of hospitalization were 4.1 (95% CI 3.2–5.0) for clopidogrel and 4.6 (95% CI 2.1–7.2) for ticagrelor or prasugrel. The standardized relative risk was 1.10 (95% CI 0.47–1.80, P = 0.67) for ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (see Supplementary material online, Figure S1).

Interaction

No significant interaction was detected between claim of a prescription for aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor group for either of the primary outcomes (P = 0.79 for the efficacy outcome, P = 0.28 for the safety outcome).

Adherence

In the clopidogrel group, 1452 patients (75.7%) had a PDC > 80%. Moreover, 124 (40.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 31 (81.6%) in the prasugrel group had a PDC > 80%. The low adherence in the ticagrelor group was a result of de-escalation. During the follow-up period, 138 individuals initially treated with ticagrelor later claimed a prescription for clopidogrel (38 switched during the first 90 days, 34 between 91 and 180 days, and 66 between 181 days and 1 year).

Due to the relatively low adherence in the ticagrelor group, we performed the primary efficacy and safety analyses on a subgroup consisting only of patients with high adherence (PDC > 80%). The standardized absolute risk of MACE in the high adherence subgroup analysis was 14.5% (95% CI, 12.7–16.2) for the clopidogrel group and 11.2% (95% CI, 8.3–14.1) for the ticagrelor or prasugrel group (see Supplementary material online, Figure S2). The relative risk of MACE was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.58–0.97, P = 0.02). The absolute risks of bleeding events requiring hospitalizations were 4.4% (95% CI, 3.4–5.4) and 3.8% (95% CI, 1.8–5.8) in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor or prasugrel group, respectively. The relative risk of bleeding events was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.44–1.28, P = 0.53) (see Supplementary material online, Figure S2).

Individuals receiving DOAC and aspirin generally had a high PDC (average >90%). Supplementary material online, Table S3 summarizes the frequency of PDC > 80% for the individual DOAC drugs and aspirin. Of the 1022 patients in the VKA group, 918 claimed a second prescription during the follow-up period. The risks of MACE and bleeding events requiring hospitalization were calculated for two subgroups of patients on triple therapy: one group consisting of individuals on DOAC therapy with PDC > 80% for both DOAC and aspirin and one group consisting of individuals claiming a second prescription for VKA and with PDC > 80% for aspirin. For the subgroup of individuals on triple therapy including DOAC, the absolute risk of MACE was 16.1% (95% CI 12.7–19.4) for the clopidogrel group and 16.7% (95% CI 8.3–25.2) for the ticagrelor or prasugrel group. The relative risk of MACE was 1.0 (95% CI 0.52–1.60, P = 0.87). The corresponding absolute bleeding risk was 4.0% (95% CI 2.2–5.9) and 1.9% (95% CI 0.0–4.7) for clopidogrel and ticagrelor or prasugrel, respectively (see Supplementary material online, Table S4). The relative risk of bleeding events was 0.49 (95% CI 0–1.19, P = 0.15) The standardized absolute risk of MACE in the triple therapy group including VKA was 19.9% (95% CI 15.6–24.1) in the clopidogrel group and 16.0% (95% CI 9.4–22.6) in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, and the absolute risks of bleeding were 4.9% (95% CI 2.5–7.2) and 5.5% (95% CI 1.2–9.7), respectively (see Supplementary material online, Table S4). The relative risk of MACE with ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel was 0.81 (95% CI 0.48–1.10, P = 0.24), and the relative risk of bleeding events was 1.10 (95% CI 0.24–2.01, P = 0.79).

Secondary outcomes

The standardized absolute risk of death from any cause was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.1–9.5) in the clopidogrel group and 6.7% (95% CI, 5.1–8.3) in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group. The corresponding standardized relative risk was 0.81 (95% CI 0.63–0.98, P = 0.03) for ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel. A forest plot of the standardized relative risks of all secondary outcomes is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Standardized relative risk of the secondary outcomes comparing the two treatment groups (ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel).

Discussion

In this nationwide, registry-based study of patients with a history of AF admitted with a first-time MI treated with PCI and who filled a prescription for a P2Y12 inhibitor after discharge, we found that treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel was associated with a reduced risk of MACE, without a concomitantly increased risk of bleeding when compared with clopidogrel.

In the Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation (RE-DUAL PCI) trial as well as in the Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation (AUGUSTUS) trial, clopidogrel was the recommended P2Y12 inhibitor for patients with coronary artery disease treated with PCI, but the treating physician was allowed to prescribe a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor if deemed indicated. Contrary to our findings, subgroup analyses of AUGUSTUS and RE-DUAL PCI reported that treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with an increased bleeding risk but no ischaemic benefit.28,29 In fact, subjects receiving ticagrelor in the RE-DUAL PCI trial had a numerically higher risk of MACE (18.7% vs. 12.9%). These results are reflected in contemporary European guidelines that recommend clopidogrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients with ACS and an indication for concomitant OAC undergoing PCI.12

Major bleeding in patients with ACS is independently associated with a five-fold increase in the risk of death,30 and bleeding risk appears more prominent in AF patients with ACS, irrespectively of antithrombotic regimen.31 The fact that we did not find a difference in bleeding between the two treatment groups may be attributable to our definition of bleeding events that only included bleeding requiring hospitalizations. The Danish registries do not currently include complete data on haemoglobin levels or bleeding diagnoses made at general practitioners’ clinics.32 Accordingly, it is unlikely that minor bleeding events were captured. Furthermore, individuals in the clopidogrel group were more likely to be treated with a PPI. These agents have previously been associated with a lower bleeding risk when administered alongside dual antiplatelet therapy.33,34 Although we standardized our analyses to the distribution of PPI treatment, we cannot exclude the possibility that the neutral relative risk in terms of bleeding across treatment groups was driven by a higher baseline bleeding risk in the clopidogrel group.

The randomized trials executed in this field focused on triple vs. double therapy and comparison of DOACs with VKAs.15–18 Collectively, the greatest reduction in bleeding risk were achieved by de-escalating from triple to double therapy. On the other hand, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor has been considered crucial to reduce the risk of in-stent stenosis in non-AF subjects undergoing PCI.35,36 In an attempt to balance the risk of recurrent ischaemia with risk of bleeding, guidelines recommend most AF patients to receive a short period of triple therapy.12 In our population, it was more likely for patients in the potent P2Y12 inhibitor group to claim a prescription for aspirin. This supports the notion that patients at a higher perceived ischaemic risk were preferentially prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel. However, in Denmark, aspirin can be purchased as over-the-counter medication which is not captured in the Danish National Prescription Register possibly leading to underestimation of aspirin use in our population.

A German, registry-based study compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in 377 patients requiring triple therapy.37 The investigators found an increased bleeding risk but no ischaemic advantage of prasugrel. Patients treated with prasugrel had a higher baseline risk profile compared with those treated with clopidogrel, and the entire study population was on triple therapy. Given the overlap between risk factors for thrombosis and bleeding,38,39 it is possible that in our setting, patients with an overall higher baseline risk profile were preferentially prescribed clopidogrel. Despite attempts to account for the differences in baseline risk, results might have been skewed in favour of the potent P2Y12 inhibitors.

Finally, a Canadian, prospective, observational study comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 277 patients with AF and MI treated with PCI on triple therapy found no differences in MACE or bleeding risk, irrespectively of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor.40 Considering the totality of evidence, the clear preference of clopidogrel over the more potent P2Y12 inhibitors may be questionable.

Limitations

Some imbalances in baseline patient characteristics are inevitable in observational studies. The European (and thus, Danish) guidelines on AF patients with ACS undergoing PCI recommends clopidogrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice.12,41 The use of ticagrelor or prasugrel is considered an active choice by the treating physician. Employing average treatment effect modelling is an attempt to minimize the effect of confounding by indication. Due to the specific setting of our study, the sample was small, particularly with respect to patients receiving prasugrel, thus limiting the generalizability of our results to this drug. Combining the ticagrelor and the prasugrel group may have impacted the results as these medications are not entirely interchangeable.42 Clopidogrel is metabolized by the cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) enzyme system to the active drug, and according to the US Food and Drug Administration, 2–14% of the population are so-called poor metabolizers of clopidogrel due to CYP2C19 genetic variation.43 It is not yet common practice in Denmark to perform CYP2C19 genotyping, and thus, reduced metabolism could have impacted our results in favour of ticagrelor and prasugrel. On the other hand, studies investigating choice of P2Y12 inhibitor guided by platelet reactivity have not been able to definitively demonstrate improved outcomes. This is also reflected in contemporary guidelines which do not recommend genotyping in routine clinical practice.44,45 Moreover, our primary efficacy outcome included repeat revascularization. It is contemporary practice to defer treatment of secondary lesions in ACS patients with multivessel disease.46 Despite our use of a 30-day blanking period, it is possible that some staged events related to the index MI were included, though this is unlikely to have affected our primary efficacy endpoint as there was no between-group difference in repeat revascularization. Furthermore, individuals in the ticagrelor group exhibited a lower adherence than both the clopidogrel and prasugrel groups. The lower adherence was due to de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibitor which might have impacted the results. Nevertheless, our results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis including only individuals with high adherence, and it is thus unlikely that lower adherence in one group impacted the overall results. Guideline recommendations on the use of aspirin in patients requiring concomitant OAC and platelet inhibition have evolved over the years. Despite this, both OAC and aspirin treatment was characterized by a high adherence rate. Although limited by small sample sizes and low overall event rates, the subgroup analyses of patients with high adherence to triple therapy yielded results that were overall consistent with the main results. It was more frequent for patients in the clopidogrel group to claim a prescription for a PPI, but overall, the rate of PPI use was lower than what might have been expected for such a study population. The fact that PPIs in small packages are sold over the counter in Denmark may have resulted in underreporting of the number of patients on PPI. Lastly, we did not have information on body weight, complexity of coronary artery disease, stent type, or true drug adherence.

Conclusions

In this nationwide, retrospective, registry-based study of patients with AF on OAC who underwent PCI for MI, individuals prescribed ticagrelor or prasugrel had a lower risk of ischaemic events and death, but not an increased risk of bleeding, than those who were prescribed clopidogrel. While these findings appear to support an individualized choice of P2Y12 inhibitor in this population, the results should ideally be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial.

Supplementary Material

oead134_Supplementary_Data
oead134_supplementary_data.zip (24.2KB, zip)

Contributor Information

Sissel J Godtfredsen, Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Kristian H Kragholm, Department of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Anna Meta Dyrvig Kristensen, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital—Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Tarek Bekfani, Department of Cardiology, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.

Rikke Sørensen, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

Maurizio Sessa, Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Christian Torp-Pedersen, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital—North Zealand Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark.

Deepak L Bhatt, Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Manan Pareek, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital—Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark; Center for Translational Cardiology and Pragmatic Randomized Trials, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital—Herlev and Gentofte, Gentofte Hospitalsvej 8, 3. TH, 2900 Hellerup, Denmark.

Data availability

Data access and use of the Statistics Denmark server were approved by the appropriate data responsible unit in the Capital Region of Denmark (approval number P-2019-403).

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at European Heart Journal Open online.

Disclosure statement

M.P. discloses the following relationships: advisory board: AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, and Novo Nordisk; grant support: Danish Cardiovascular Academy funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation (grant number: CPD5Y-2022004-HF); speaker honorarium: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen-Cilag. D.L.B. discloses the following relationships: advisory Board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Stasys; Board of Directors: American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (stock options), Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock); consultant: Broadview Ventures, GlaxoSmithKline, Hims, SFJ, Youngene; data monitoring committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, 89Bio; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site co-investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, Vascular Solutions; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; unfunded research: FlowCo. The other authors report no relevant disclosures.

Ethical approval

Data access and use of the Statistics Denmark server were approved by the appropriate data responsible unit in the Capital Region of Denmark (approval number P-2019-403).

Funding

None declared.

References

  • 1. Ruff  CT, Bhatt  DL, Steg  PG, Gersh  BJ, Alberts  MJ, Hoffman  EB, Ohman  EM, Eagle  KA, Lip  GY, Goto  S; REACH Registry Investigators . Long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and atherothrombosis in the REACH registry. Int J Cardiol  2014;170:413–418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Jabre  P, Jouven  X, Adnet  F, Thabut  G, Bielinski  SJ, Weston  SA, Roger  VL. Atrial fibrillation and death after myocardial infarction. Circulation  2011;123:2094–2100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. O'Donnell  MJ, Chin  SL, Rangarajan  S, Xavier  D, Liu  L, Zhang  H, Rao-Melacini  P, Zhang  X, Pais  P, Agapay  S, Lopez-Jaramillo  P, Damasceno  A, Langhorne  P, McQueen  MJ, Rosengren  A, Dehghan  M, Hankey  GJ, Dans  AL, Elsayed  A, Avezum  A, Mondo  C, Diener  HC, Ryglewicz  D, Czlonkowska  A, Pogosova  N, Weimar  C, Iqbal  R, Diaz  R, Yusoff  K, Yusufali  A, Oguz  A, Wang  X, Penaherrera  E, Lanas  F, Ogah  OS, Ogunniyi  A, Iversen  HK, Malaga  G, Rumboldt  Z, Oveisgharan  S, Al Hussain  F, Magazi  D, Nilanont  Y, Ferguson  J, Pare  G, Yusuf  S; INTERSTROKE investigators . Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet  2016;388:761–775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. van Latum  JC, Koudstaal  PJ, Venables  GS, van Gijn  J, Kappelle  LJ, Algra  A. Predictors of major vascular events in patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke and with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stroke  1995;26:801–806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kopecky  SL, Gersh  BJ, McGoon  MD, Chu  CP, Ilstrup  DM, Chesebro  JH, Whisnant  JP. Lone atrial fibrillation in elderly persons. Arch Intern Med  1999;159:1118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Lip  GY, Laroche  C, Dan  GA, Santini  M, Kalarus  Z, Rasmussen  LH, Oliveira  MM, Mairesse  G, Crijns  HJ, Simantirakis  E, Atar  D, Kirchhof  P, Vardas  P, Tavazzi  L, Maggioni  AP. A prospective survey in European Society of Cardiology member countries of atrial fibrillation management: baseline results of EURObservational Research Programme Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) pilot general registry. EP Europace  2014;16:308–319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Flegel  KM, Shipley  MJ, Rose  G. Risk of stroke in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Lancet  1987;329:526–529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wolf  PA, Abbott  RD, Kannel  WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham study. Stroke  1991;22:983–988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Singer  DE, Chang  Y, Fang  MC, Borowsky  LH, Pomernacki  NK, Udaltsova  N, Go  AS. The net clinical benefit of warfarin anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med  2009;151:297–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Lip  GY, Andreotti  F, Fauchier  L, Huber  K, Hylek  E, Knight  E, Lane  D, Levi  M, Marín  F, Palareti  G, Kirchhof  P; European Heart Rhythm Association . Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost  2011;106:997–1011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Ibánez  B, James  S, Agewall  S, Antunes  MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci  C, Bueno  H, Caforio  ALP, Crea  F, Goudevenos  JA, Halvorsen  S, Hindricks  G, Kastrati  A, Lenzen  MJ, Prescott  E, Roffi  M, Valgimigli  M, Varenhorst  C, Vranckx  P, Widimský  P. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J  2018;39:119–177.28886621 [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Collet  JP, Thiele  H, Barbato  E, Barthélémy  O, Bauersachs  J, Bhatt  DL, Dendale  P, Dorobantu  M, Edvardsen  T, Folliguet  T, Gale  CP, Gilard  M, Jobs  A, Jüni  P, Lambrinou  E, Lewis  BS, Mehilli  J, Meliga  E, Merkely  B, Mueller  C, Roffi  M, Rutten  FH, Sibbing  D, Siontis  GCM; ESC Scientific Document Group . 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J  2021;42:1289–1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wiviott  SD, Braunwald  E, McCabe  CH, Montalescot  G, Ruzyllo  W, Gottlieb  S, Neumann  FJ, Ardissino  D, De Servi  S, Murphy  SA, Riesmeyer  J, Weerakkody  G, Gibson  CM, Antman  EM; TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators . Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. New Engl J Med  2007;357:2001–2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Wallentin  L, Becker  RC, Budaj  A, Cannon  CP, Emanuelsson  H, Held  C, Horrow  J, Husted  S, James  S, Katus  H, Mahaffey  KW, Scirica  BM, Skene  A, Steg  PG, Storey  RF, Harrington  RA; PLATO  Investigators; Freij  A, Thorsén  M. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. New Engl J Med  2009;361:1045–1057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Vranckx  P, Valgimigli  M, Eckardt  L, Tijssen  J, Lewalter  T, Gargiulo  G, Batushkin  V, Campo  G, Lysak  Z, Vakaliuk  I, Milewski  K, Laeis  P, Reimitz  PE, Smolnik  R, Zierhut  W, Goette  A. Edoxaban-based versus vitamin K antagonist-based antithrombotic regimen after successful coronary stenting in patients with atrial fibrillation (ENTRUST-AF PCI): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet  2019;394:1335–1343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Gibson  CM, Mehran  R, Bode  C, Halperin  J, Verheugt  FW, Wildgoose  P, Birmingham  M, Ianus  J, Burton  P, van Eickels  M, Korjian  S, Daaboul  Y, Lip  GY, Cohen  M, Husted  S, Peterson  ED, Fox  KA. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. New Engl J Med  2016;375:2423–2434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Cannon  CP, Bhatt  DL, Oldgren  J, Lip  GYH, Ellis  SG, Kimura  T, Maeng  M, Merkely  B, Zeymer  U, Gropper  S, Nordaby  M, Kleine  E, Harper  R, Manassie  J, Januzzi  JL, Ten Berg  JM, Steg  PG, Hohnloser  SH; RE-DUAL PCI Steering Committee and Investigators . Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. New Engl J Med  2017;377:1513–1524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Lopes  RD, Heizer  G, Aronson  R, Vora  AN, Massaro  T, Mehran  R, Goodman  SG, Windecker  S, Darius  H, Li  J, Averkov  O, Bahit  MC, Berwanger  O, Budaj  A, Hijazi  Z, Parkhomenko  A, Sinnaeve  P, Storey  RF, Thiele  H, Vinereanu  D, Granger  CB, Alexander  JH; AUGUSTUS Investigators . Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. New Engl J Med  2019;380:1509–1524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Helweg-Larsen  K. The Danish Register of Causes of Death. Scand J Public Health  2011;39:26–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Wallach Kildemoes  H, Toft Sørensen  H, Hallas  J. The Danish National Prescription Registry. Scand J Public Health  2011;39:38–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Lynge  E, Sandegaard  JL, Rebolj  M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health  2011;39:30–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Olesen  JB, Lip  GY, Hansen  ML, Hansen  PR, Tolstrup  JS, Lindhardsen  J, Selmer  C, Ahlehoff  O, Olsen  AM, Gislason  GH, Torp-Pedersen  C. Validation of risk stratification schemes for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation: nationwide cohort study. BMJ  2011;342:d124–d124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Forbes  CA, Deshpande  S, Sorio-Vilela  F, Kutikova  L, Duffy  S, Gouni-Berthold  I, Hagström  E. A systematic literature review comparing methods for the measurement of patient persistence and adherence. Curr Med Res Opin  2018;34:1613–1625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Prieto-Merino  D, Mulick  A, Armstrong  C, Hoult  H, Fawcett  S, Eliasson  L, Clifford  S. Estimating proportion of days covered (PDC) using real-world online medicine suppliers’ datasets. J Pharm Policy Pract  2021;14:113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Rasmussen  L, Pratt  N, Hansen  MR, Hallas  J, Pottegård  A. Using the ‘proportion of patients covered’ and the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to describe treatment persistence. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf  2018;27:867–871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Groenwold  RHH. Falsification end points for observational studies. JAMA  2013;309:1769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Ozenne  B, Sørensen  AL, Scheike  T, Torp-Pedersen  C, Gerds  TA. riskRegression: predicting the risk of an event using cox regression models. R J  2017;9:440–460. [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Storey  R, Alexander  JH, Wojdyla  DM, Mehran  R, Vora  AN, Goodman  SG, Aronson  R, Windecker  S, Granger  CB, Lopes  RD. Choice of P2Y12 inhibitor and clinical outcomes in the AUGUSTUS study: support for an individualised approach. Eur Heart J  2020;41:ehaa946–ehaa1450. [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Oldgren  J, Steg  PG, Hohnloser  SH, Lip  GYH, Kimura  T, Nordaby  M, Brueckmann  M, Kleine  E, Ten Berg  JM, Bhatt  DL, Cannon  CP. Dabigatran dual therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in atrial fibrillation patients with or without acute coronary syndrome: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial. Eur Heart J  2019;40:1553–1562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Eikelboom  JW, Mehta  SR, Anand  SS, Xie  C, Fox  KA, Yusuf  S. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation  2006;114:774–782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Hansen  ML, Sørensen  R, Clausen  MT, Fog-Petersen  ML, Raunsø  J, Gadsbøll  N, Gislason  GH, Folke  F, Andersen  SS, Schramm  TK, Abildstrøm  SZ. Risk of bleeding with single, dual, or triple therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med  2010;170:1433–1441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Arendt  JFH, Hansen  AT, Ladefoged  SA, Sørensen  HT, Pedersen  L, Adelborg  K. Existing data sources in clinical epidemiology: laboratory information system databases in Denmark. Clin Epidemiol  2020;12:469–475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Bhatt  DL, Cryer  BL, Contant  CF, Cohen  M, Lanas  A, Schnitzer  TJ, Shook  TL, Lapuerta  P, Goldsmith  MA, Laine  L, Scirica  BM, Murphy  SA, Cannon  CP; COGENT Investigators . Clopidogrel with or without omeprazole in coronary artery disease. New Engl J Med  2010;363:1909–1917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Sehested  TSG, Carlson  N, Hansen  PW, Gerds  TA, Charlot  MG, Torp-Pedersen  C, Køber  L, Gislason  GH, Hlatky  MA, Fosbøl  EL. Reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy after myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J  2019;40:1963–1970. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Schömig  A, Neumann  FJ, Kastrati  A, Schühlen  H, Blasini  R, Hadamitzky  M, Walter  H, Zitzmann-Roth  EM, Richardt  G, Alt  E, Schmitt  C, Ulm  K. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. New Engl J Med  1996;334:1084–1089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Leon  MB, Baim  DS, Popma  JJ, Gordon  PC, Cutlip  DE, Ho  KK, Giambartolomei  A, Diver  DJ, Lasorda  DM, Williams  DO, Pocock  SJ, Kuntz  RE. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. New Engl J Med  1998;339:1665–1671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Sarafoff  N, Martischnig  A, Wealer  J, Mayer  K, Mehilli  J, Sibbing  D, Kastrati  A. Triple therapy with aspirin, prasugrel, and vitamin K antagonists in patients with drug-eluting stent implantation and an indication for oral anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol  2013;61:2060–2066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Yeh  RW, Secemsky  EA, Kereiakes  DJ, Normand  SL, Gershlick  AH, Cohen  DJ, Spertus  JA, Steg  PG, Cutlip  DE, Rinaldi  MJ, Camenzind  E, Wijns  W, Apruzzese  PK, Song  Y, Massaro  JM, Mauri  L; DAPT Study Investigators . Development and validation of a prediction rule for benefit and harm of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA  2016;315:1735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Costa  F, van Klaveren  D, James  S, Heg  D, Räber  L, Feres  F, Pilgrim  T, Hong  MK, Kim  HS, Colombo  A, Steg  PG, Zanchin  T, Palmerini  T, Wallentin  L, Bhatt  DL, Stone  GW, Windecker  S, Steyerberg  EW, Valgimigli  M; PRECISE-DAPT Study Investigators . Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet  2017;389:1025–1034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Sra  S, Tan  MK, Mehta  SR, Fisher  HN, Déry  JP, Welsh  RC, Eisenberg  MJ, Overgaard  CB, Rose  BF, Siega  AJ, Cheema  AN, Wong  BY, Henderson  MA, Lutchmedial  S, Lavi  S, Goodman  SG, Yan  AT; Canadian Observational AntiPlatelet sTudy (COAPT) Investigators . Ischemic and bleeding events in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who require oral anticoagulation: insights from the Canadian observational AntiPlatelet sTudy. Am Heart J  2016;180:82–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Mathiasen  AB, Høfsten  DE, Egholm  G, Aarøe  J, Kragholm  K, Larsen  LH, Sørensen  R, Fakhri  Y. Behandlingsvejledning | Akut koronart syndrom. Cardio.dk. https://nbv.cardio.dk/aks.
  • 42. Schüpke  S, Neumann  FJ, Menichelli  M, Mayer  K, Bernlochner  I, Wöhrle  J, Richardt  G, Liebetrau  C, Witzenbichler  B, Antoniucci  D, Akin  I, Bott-Flügel  L, Fischer  M, Landmesser  U, Katus  HA, Sibbing  D, Seyfarth  M, Janisch  M, Boncompagni  D, Hilz  R, Rottbauer  W, Okrojek  R, Möllmann  H, Hochholzer  W, Migliorini  A, Cassese  S, Mollo  P, Xhepa  E, Kufner  S, Strehle  A, Leggewie  S, Allali  A, Ndrepepa  G, Schühlen  H, Angiolillo  DJ, Hamm  CW, Hapfelmeier  A, Tölg  R, Trenk  D, Schunkert  H, Laugwitz  KL, Kastrati  A; ISAR-REACT 5 Trial Investigators . Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. New Engl J Med  2019;381:1524–1534. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Food and Drug Administration (US) . FDA drug safety communication: reduced effectiveness of plavix (clopidogrel) in patients who are poor metabolizers of the drug, https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/fda-drug-safety-communication-reduced-effectiveness-plavix-clopidogrel-patients-who-are-poor (2017, accessed 9 October 2023).
  • 44. Pereira  NL, Rihal  CS, So  DYF, Rosenberg  Y, Lennon  RJ, Mathew  V, Goodman  SG, Weinshilboum  RM, Wang  L, Baudhuin  LM, Lerman  A, Hasan  A, Iturriaga  E, Fu  YP, Geller  N, Bailey  K, Farkouh  ME. Clopidogrel pharmacogenetics. Circ Cardiovasc Interv  2019;12:e007811. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Klein  MD, Williams  AK, Lee  CR, Stouffer  GA. Clinical utility of CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients with an acute coronary syndrome or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol  2019;39:647–652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Mehta  SR, Wood  DA, Storey  RF, Mehran  R, Bainey  KR, Nguyen  H, Meeks  B, Di Pasquale  G, López-Sendón  J, Faxon  DP, Mauri  L, Rao  SV, Feldman  L, Steg  PG, Avezum  Á, Sheth  T, Pinilla-Echeverri  N, Moreno  R, Campo  G, Wrigley  B, Kedev  S, Sutton  A, Oliver  R, Rodés-Cabau  J, Stanković  G, Welsh  R, Lavi  S, Cantor  WJ, Wang  J, Nakamya  J, Bangdiwala  SI, Cairns  JA; COMPLETE Trial Steering Committee and Investigators . Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med  2019;381:1411–1421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

oead134_Supplementary_Data
oead134_supplementary_data.zip (24.2KB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

Data access and use of the Statistics Denmark server were approved by the appropriate data responsible unit in the Capital Region of Denmark (approval number P-2019-403).

Articles from European Heart Journal Open are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology

RESOURCES