Efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared to ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Subhro Chakraborty, Debalina Sarkar, Shambo Samrat Samajdar, Pallab Biswas, Debasish Mohapatra, Saptarshi Halder, Mohammad Yunus
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared to ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI): a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Subhro Chakraborty, Debalina Sarkar, Shambo Samrat Samajdar, Pallab Biswas, Debasish Mohapatra, Saptarshi Halder, Mohammad Yunus","doi":"10.1186/s43044-024-00480-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared to ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent percutaneous intervention. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant head-on-comparison or swapping studies. The primary outcome was the rate of high platelet reactivity (HPR) at specific time intervals after stopping cangrelor infusion during the first 24 h. Secondary outcomes were the risks of thrombosis, all-cause mortality and bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models. A total of 1018 studies were screened and eight were included in the analysis. There were four head-on-comparison studies and four swapping studies. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving a high platelet reactivity in swapping studies [OR, 0.71 (95% CI 0.04, 13.87), p = 0.82, i2 = 88%]. In head-on-comparison studies, PRU from Fig. 2B shows there was no significant reduction in high platelet reactivity [mean difference – 77.83 (95% CI − 238.84, 83.18), p < 0.001, i2 = 100%]. PRU results from (Fig. 2C) show a mean difference of 7.38 (95% CI − 29.74, 44.51), p < 0.001, i2 = 97%. There was no significant difference in the risks of thrombosis [OR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.20, 4.13), p = 0.81, i2 = 0%], all-cause mortality [OR, 3.52 (95% CI 0.44, 27.91), p = 0.24, i2 = 26%] and bleeding [OR, 0.89 (95% CI 0.37, 2.17), p = 0.93, i2 = 0%] between the two groups as revealed in the head-on-comparison studies. The efficacy and safety profiles of cangrelor and ticagrelor were similar in patients with STEMI.","PeriodicalId":22462,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Heart Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00480-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cangrelor as compared to ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent percutaneous intervention. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for relevant head-on-comparison or swapping studies. The primary outcome was the rate of high platelet reactivity (HPR) at specific time intervals after stopping cangrelor infusion during the first 24 h. Secondary outcomes were the risks of thrombosis, all-cause mortality and bleeding. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models. A total of 1018 studies were screened and eight were included in the analysis. There were four head-on-comparison studies and four swapping studies. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving a high platelet reactivity in swapping studies [OR, 0.71 (95% CI 0.04, 13.87), p = 0.82, i2 = 88%]. In head-on-comparison studies, PRU from Fig. 2B shows there was no significant reduction in high platelet reactivity [mean difference – 77.83 (95% CI − 238.84, 83.18), p < 0.001, i2 = 100%]. PRU results from (Fig. 2C) show a mean difference of 7.38 (95% CI − 29.74, 44.51), p < 0.001, i2 = 97%. There was no significant difference in the risks of thrombosis [OR, 0.91 (95% CI 0.20, 4.13), p = 0.81, i2 = 0%], all-cause mortality [OR, 3.52 (95% CI 0.44, 27.91), p = 0.24, i2 = 26%] and bleeding [OR, 0.89 (95% CI 0.37, 2.17), p = 0.93, i2 = 0%] between the two groups as revealed in the head-on-comparison studies. The efficacy and safety profiles of cangrelor and ticagrelor were similar in patients with STEMI.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坎格雷罗与替卡格雷罗相比对ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者的疗效和安全性:系统综述和荟萃分析
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较坎格雷与替卡格雷在接受经皮介入治疗的ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者中的疗效和安全性。在 PubMed、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 数据库中检索了相关的正面比较或互换研究。主要结果是在停止输注坎格雷罗后的头 24 小时内特定时间间隔内的血小板高反应率(HPR)。采用随机效应模型计算汇总的几率比(OR)。共筛选出 1018 项研究,其中 8 项纳入分析。其中有四项正面比较研究和四项交换研究。在交换研究中,达到高血小板反应性的患者比例没有明显差异[OR,0.71(95% CI 0.04,13.87),P = 0.82,i2 = 88%]。在正面比较研究中,图 2B 的 PRU 显示高血小板反应性没有显著降低[平均差 - 77.83 (95% CI - 238.84, 83.18),p < 0.001,i2 = 100%]。PRU 结果(图 2C)显示平均差异为 7.38(95% CI - 29.74,44.51),P < 0.001,i2 = 97%。在血栓形成风险[OR,0.91 (95% CI 0.20, 4.13),p = 0.81,i2 = 0%]、全因死亡率[OR,3.52 (95% CI 0.44, 27.91),p = 0.24,i2 = 26%]和出血风险[OR,0.89 (95% CI 0.37, 2.17),p = 0.93,i2 = 0%]方面,两组之间没有明显差异,这一点在正面比较研究中也有所体现。坎格雷乐和替卡格雷乐对 STEMI 患者的疗效和安全性相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Excimer laser coronary angioplasty: a mini-narrative review of clinical outcomes Myxomatous cause of multiple intracranial aneurysms and cognitive decline: a case report Isolated diastolic hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes across different diagnostic guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis A rare differential diagnosis of aortic stenosis with a black aortic valve: A case report Safety and efficacy of early beta-blocker initiation in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1