| Autor: |
Dai WB; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Ren JY; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Hu ST; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Zhang YK; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Gu TS; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Wu X; Institute for Global Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, USA., Zhang JK; Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, USA., Che JJ; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Ma XH; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Liu T; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Li GP; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China., Chen KY; Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China. |
| Abstrakt: |
Currently, the standard treatment for patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following acute myocardial infarction (MI) involves dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a combination of aspirin and a potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. However, the potential benefits of aspirin were partially constrained by the intolerance of some patients. The safety and efficacy of indobufen, an alternative antiplatelet agents to aspirin, in patients with AMI after PCI are yet to be thoroughly investigated.This retrospective study was conducted at a single center and utilized propensity score matching. The enrollment spanned from January 2019 to June 2022, incorporating patients with AMI after PCI. The participants were categorized into two groups based on discharged prescriptions: the aspirin DAPT group and the indobufen DAPT group. The primary endpoint focused on net adverse clinical event (NACE), defined as a composite outcome, including cardiac death, recurrence of MI, definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR), ischemic stroke and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria type 2, 3, or 5. All the patients underwent a one-year follow-up period.A total of 1451 patients were enrolled in this study, with 258 assigned to the indobufen DAPT group and 1193 to the aspirin DAPT group. Following 1:1 propensity score matching, 224 patients were retained in each group. In the indobufen DAPT group, 58 individuals (25.9%) experienced the primary endpoint within one year, compared to 52 individuals (23.2%) in the aspirin DAPT group (HR 1.128, 95% CI 0.776-1.639, p = .527). Specifically, no significant differences were observed in either the efficacy endpoint (MACCE, 20.1% vs. 14.7%, HR 1.392, 95% CI 0.893-2.170, p = .146) or the safety endpoint (BARC 2,3 or 5, 8.04% vs. 10.30%, HR 0.779, p = .427). These findings remained consistent at 1, 3, or 6 months. Additionally, the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly lower in indobufen DAPT group compared to the aspirin DAPT group (7.1% vs. 14.3%, p = .022).Our research reveals that the efficacy and safety of indobufen are comparable to aspirin in Chinese patients with AMI following PCI. Given the potential advantages of indobufen in alleviating gastrointestinal symptoms, we propose it as a viable alternative for individuals intolerant to aspirin. |
