Clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a pooled IABP-SHOCK II and CULPRIT-SHOCK trial sub-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this pooled sub-analysis of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) and Culprit Lesion Only PCI versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK) trial was to compare the clinical outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated either with clopidogrel or the newer, more potent ADP-receptor antagonists prasugrel or ticagrelor.

METHODS AND

RESULTS

For the current analysis the primary endpoint was 1-year mortality and the secondary safety endpoint was moderate or severe bleedings until hospital discharge with respect to three different ADP-receptor antagonists. 856 patients were eligible for analysis. Of these, 507 patients (59.2%) received clopidogrel, 178 patients (20.8%) prasugrel and 171 patients (20.0%) ticagrelor as acute antiplatelet therapy. The adjusted rate of mortality after 1-year did not differ significantly between prasugrel and clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-1.09, padj = 0.17) or between ticagrelor and clopidogrel treated patients (HR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.15, padj = 0.31). In-hospital bleeding events were significantly less frequent in patients treated with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 -0.69, padj = 0.002) and not significantly different in patients treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 -1.24, padj = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

This pooled sub-analysis is the largest analysis on safety and efficacy of three oral ADP-receptor antagonists and shows that acute therapy with either clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor is no independent predictor of 1-year mortality. Treatment with ticagrelor seems independently associated with less in-hospital moderate and severe bleeding events compared to clopidogrel. This finding might be due to selection bias and should be interpreted with caution.