Oral antiplatelet agents: new insights in managing patients with acute coronary syndromes

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc P. Bonaca ◽  
Robert P. Giugliano
2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Alessandro Aprile ◽  
Raffaella Marzullo ◽  
Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai ◽  
Maria Grazia Modena

Antiplatelet therapy is a mainstay in the management of coronary artery disease. Indeed, optimal and rapid inhibition of platelet function is a key therapeutic goal in patients with acute coronary syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Currently, dual antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel is the gold standard care in patients with acute coronary syndromes or receiving coronary stents without prohibitive bleeding risk. However, recent data show that the efficacy of clopidogrel is hampered by its slow and variable platelet inhibition, with ensuing increased risk of ischemic events, including death, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. Novel agents such as prasugrel and ticagrelor have been developed to clopidogrel limits and thus improve cardiovascular outcomes. This article presents a comprehensive overview of the benefits and limitations of current and shortly available antiplatelet agents, providing detailed arguments in favor and against prasugrel and ticagrelor.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 30-38
Author(s):  
Pascal Meier ◽  
Alexandra J. Lansky ◽  
Andreas Baumbach

Summary Unstable coronary artery plaque is the most common underlying cause of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and can manifest as unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation infarction (NSTE-ACS), and ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but can also manifest as sudden cardiac arrest due to ischaemia induced tachyarrhythmias. ACS mortality has decreased significantly over the last few years, especially from the more extreme manifestations of ACS, STEMI, and cardiac arrest. This trend is likely to continue based on recent therapeutic progress which includes novel antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel, ticagrelor and cangrelor.


1998 ◽  
Vol 135 (5) ◽  
pp. S194-S200 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Ferguson ◽  
Theodore K. Lau

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Asunción Esteve-Pastor ◽  
Juan Miguel Ruíz-Nodar ◽  
Esteban Orenes-Piñero ◽  
José Miguel Rivera-Caravaca ◽  
Miriam Quintana-Giner ◽  
...  

Background: Current clinical guidelines of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) recommend the use of potent antiplatelet therapy, prasugrel or ticagrelor, because both drugs consistently reduce cardiovascular events. Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine temporal changes in the use of optimal antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. Methods: A total of 1717 consecutive patients admitted for ACS in 3 tertiary hospitals from February 2014 to December 2015 were enrolled. We divided these 23 months into 4 semesters: period I (0-5 months), period II (6-11 months), period III (12-17 months), and period IV (17-23 months). Demographic, clinical, and treatment data were collected both at admission and at discharge. Results: Treatment with clopidogrel remained constant throughout the periods (52%, 50%, 44%, and 50% for periods I, II, III, and IV, respectively), whereas a progressive increase in ticagrelor treatment was observed (15%, 25%, 26%, and 28%; P = .001). Indeed, new P2Y12 agents showed an increase from 47% at the first semester to 65% in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and in patients younger than 75 years from 36% to 53%. However, for patients older than 75 years, diabetic, and patients with end-stage kidney disease, clopidogrel was the second most commonly used antiplatelet agent. Conclusion: In this real-life registry of patients with ACS, we observed there is still a high rate of use of clopidogrel, despite guidelines recommendations, and our analyses also showed a trend toward the use of ticagrelor. Patients who received new antiplatelet agents were patients with STEMI, younger than 75 years, and with less comorbidities. However, the use of ticagrelor and prasugrel remains low, highlighting a therapeutic inertia with considerable gap between evidence-based clinical guidelines and daily clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document