
==== Front
Medicine (Baltimore)
Medicine (Baltimore)
MD
Medicine
0025-7974
1536-5964
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Hagerstown, MD

MD-D-24-02664
00012
10.1097/MD.0000000000039620
3
3400
Research Article
Observational Study
Comparison of clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and left ventricle dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational study
Zhao Caitong MS 906662780@qq.com
a
Fei Changdong MD, PhD fcd666666@163.com
b
Chen Renzheng MD 406346205@qq.com
ce
Liu Yupeng MD, PhD lypyhm@163.com
d
https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4651-5169
Zhang Hualin MD, PhD e*
a Department of Quality Control, the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, Shenyang, China
b Department of Health Management Center, the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA, Dalian, China
c National Clinical Research Center of Geriatric Diseases, the Second Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
d Department of Critical Care Medicine, the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA, Dalian, China
e Department of Emergency, the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA, Dalian, China.
* Correspondence: Hualin Zhang, Department of Emergency, the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA, Xigang District, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, China (e-mail: dragon1218@126.com).
06 9 2024
06 9 2024
103 36 e3962012 3 2024
02 8 2024
16 8 2024
Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) need adequate antithrombotic protection. We aim to compare the clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in these patients. In total, 336 patients with ACS and LV dysfunction who undergoing PCI were included in this retrospective observational study. Of these, 137 received clopidogrel and 199 received ticagrelor. There was a 6-month follow-up period during which clinical outcomes were monitored. The incidence of the composite endpoint (23.1% vs 13.9%, P = .041) and bleeding events (6.5% vs 1.5%, P = .027) in the ticagrelor group were significantly higher compared to the clopidogrel group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age (P = .006), hypertension (P = .007), liver insufficiency (P = .022), previous MI (P = .014) and ticagrelor (P = .044) were independent risk factors that affect the efficacy outcome. Age (P = .027) and ticagrelor (P = .016) were the independent risk factors for the safety outcome. Furthermore, in Cox survival regression analysis model, the survival rate of the efficacy endpoint in the clopidogrel group was seemingly higher than in the ticagrelor group (HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.97–2.90, P = .065). The survival rate of the bleeding endpoint in the clopidogrel group was higher than in the ticagrelor group (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.17–3.40, P = .011). Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor showed increased risk of efficacy outcome and major bleeding events during 6-month follow-up in patients with ACS and LV dysfunction undergoing PCI.

acute coronary syndrome
clinical outcome
dual antiplatelet
left ventricular dysfunction
the China Red Cross Foundation Medical empowerment public welfare special fundNo. CRCF-YXFN-202201047 Yupeng LiuOPEN-ACCESSTRUE
SDCT
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a severe manifestation of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease, characterized by its acute nature and often associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality.[1] Currently, with the continuous improvement of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) therapy and the optimization of antithrombotic strategy, coupled with the improvement of medical conditions, the survival prognosis of ACS patients have been improved to a certain extent.[2,3] However, the presence of specific comorbidities, such as anemia and diabetes, can further worsen the negative impact of clinical outcomes.[4,5] Due to limited tolerance to hemodynamic stressors and ischemic complications, patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who have undergone PCI are at an increased risk of developing adverse events,[6,7] this highlights the need of adequate antithrombotic protection for these patients.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, is widely considered the standard treatment for patients with ACS.[8] However, these patients are more likely to experience a major bleeding event in the first year of treatment with established DAPT,[9] so this considerable risk offsets the clinical benefit of reducing the occurrence of ischemia. As a new oral P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor exhibits faster and stronger antiplatelet aggregation properties compared to clopidogrel.[10] Despite the controversy, ticagrelor has been demonstrated as the preferred treatment option in patients with ACS undergoing PCI without increasing the overall risk of major bleeding, especially for those who have simultaneous organ comorbidities.[11] Nevertheless, it is imperative to thoroughly reassess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in East Asian populations, as genetic differences have been shown to result in reduced responsiveness to antiplatelet therapy.[12]

There is no convincing evidence that the presence of LV dysfunction could affect selection of antiplatelet agents. Additionally, there is a lack of available information concerning about the clinical impact of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in East Asian patients with ACS and LV dysfunction undergoing PCI. Thus, we designed this retrospective study to compare the clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with ACS and LV dysfunction who underwent PCI over a 6-month period, and hopefully provide contribute data in determining the optimal regimen.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Study population and ethical considerations

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study and we enrolled 336 patients with ACS and LV dysfunction who underwent PCI in the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA between 2019 and 2023. ACS is defined based on a diagnosis of unstable angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction (MI). Unstable angina is defined as the presence of myocardial ischemia without elevated troponin, with or without ECG ischemic changes. Acute MI encompasses both ST elevation MI and non-ST elevation MI. LV dysfunction was characterized by low absolute values (<50%) or significant decreases (20% relative to baseline) in cardiac LV ejection fraction (EF) before performed PCI.[13] Exclusion criteria included contraindications to antiplatelet drugs, need for oral anticoagulant therapy, concomitant chronic infections, malignancies, and autoimmune diseases. Additionally, cases in which information was lost during the follow-up period were also excluded. Informed consent was obtained from each patient and the study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a priori approval by the Human Ethics Committee of the 967th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force of Chinese PLA (No. PLA967-GC2023-120).

2.2. Clinical protocol

All patients underwent PCI using a conventional approach and were administered antiplatelet medications including aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to antiplatelet treatment. Patients in the ticagrelor group received a loading dose of 180 mg, followed by oral ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg, taken twice daily, while patients in the clopidogrel group received a loading dose of 300 mg, followed by a maintenance dosage of 75 mg per day. Throughout the entire duration of the study, all patients received oral aspirin at a dosage of 100 mg once daily.

2.3. Data collection

All the data were extracted from electronic and traditional clinical medical records, including the patients’ demographic information, comorbidities, nursing records, clinical diagnosis, medications at the time of admission and discharge, interventions or procedures, and in-hospital biochemistry tests and echocardiography results. Two staffs with specialized training meticulously examined all of the data. A third researcher adjudicated any differences in interpretation between the 2 workers.

2.4. Follow-up and clinical outcomes

The endpoints were the incidence of ischemic events (death, nonfatal MI, stroke, target vessel revascularization, and rehospitalization) and bleeding events.[14] MI was defined based on the established clinical practice.[15] Target vessel revascularization was defined as percutaneous revascularization or bypass surgery that specifically addressed the target lesion. Rehospitalization was defined as hospitalization for the treatment of unstable angina. Ischemic stroke was defined as neurological dysfunction caused by a focal infarction of the brain, spinal cord, or retina. The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) standards were used to assess bleeding events.[16] BARC bleeding types range from 0 (no bleeding) to 5 (fatal bleeding) and bleeding events that are classified as BARC 1 through 5. The clinical outcomes were monitored for 6 months underwent PCI across various groups (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study. ACS = acute coronary syndrome, LV = left ventricular, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are reported as median (interquartile range, IQR), while categorical variables are expressed as n (%). Differences in measurements between different groups with normal distribution were tested using an independent-sample t-test, while the Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyze the data that did not fit a normal distribution. Categorical data were compared using the chi-square test, continuity correction, or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Binary logistic regression model was employed to ascertain the independent predictors. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazard regression model (Enter/LR forward) was used for survival analyses. Variables that were considered clinically relevant or showed a univariate relationship with the outcomes (P < .10) were included in the multivariate regression model. To ensure the parsimony of the final model, variables for inclusion were carefully selected according to the number of events available and avoid the collinearity. Odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was employed in regression model to determine the relationship between risk factors and outcomes. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Baseline characteristics

A total of 336 ACS patients with LV dysfunction were enrolled in this study between 2018 and 2022. A 6-month follow-up period concluded in December 2022. The patients were divided into the ticagrelor group (n = 199) and the clopidogrel group (n = 137) according to medicine treatment. Baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment groups were listed in Table 1. The size of LV diameter in the ticagrelor group were larger compared to the clopidogrel group (P = .048). And we observed a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease among patients treated with ticagrelor than those treated with clopidogrel (P = .031).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics in ACS patients with LV dysfunction undergoing PCI.

	Total (n = 336)	Ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 199)	Clopidogrel plus aspirin (n = 137)	P value	
Age, years	62.00 (54.00–67.00)	62.00 (54.00–67.00)	63.00 (56.00–68.00)	.245	
Males, n (%)	228 (67.9%)	141 (70.9%)	87 (63.5%)	.156	
BMI, kg/m2	24.50 (22.49–26.89)	24.51 (22.13–27.18)	24.61 (22.62–26.70)	.660	
Current smoker, n (%)	172 (51.2%)	103 (51.8%)	69 (50.4%)	.802	
Current drinker, n (%)	148 (44.0%)	91 (45.7%)	57 (41.6%)	.454	
UAP, n (%)	256 (76.2%)	155 (77.9%)	101 (73.7%)	.378	
STEMI, n (%)	41 (12.2%)	21 (10.6%)	20 (14.6%)	.266	
NSTEMI, n (%)	39 (11.6%)	23 (11.6%)	16 (11.7%)	.973	
Heart rate, bpm	78.00 (70.00–87.00)	79.00 (70.00–88.00)	77.00 (68.00–85.50)	.189	
SBP, mm Hg	131.50 (117.00–142.00)	130.00 (116.00–142.00)	131.00 (118.00–141.00)	.996	
DBP, mm Hg	73.00 (64.25–82.00)	74.00 (63.00–82.00)	73.00 (65.50–81.50)	.892	
Left ventricular diameter, mm	51.00 (48.00–55.00)	52.00 (48.00–56.00)	51.00 (48.00–55.00)	.048	
Ejection fraction, n (%)	45.00 (42.00–48.00)	45.00 (42.00–48.00)	45.00 (43.00–48.00)	.636	
History	
 Atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, n (%)	118 (35.2%)	69 (34.7%)	49 (35.8%)	.837	
 Diabete, n (%)	87 (25.9%)	53 (26.6%)	34 (24.8%)	.709	
 Previous MI, n (%)	57 (17.0%)	35 (17.6%)	22 (16.1%)	.714	
 Previous coronary stent implantation, n (%)	58 (17.3%)	36 (18.1%)	22 (16.1%)	.628	
 Previous GI bleeding, n (%)	12 (3.6%)	7 (3.5%)	5 (3.6%)	.949	
 Hypertension, n (%)	225 (67.0%)	128 (64.3%)	97 (70.8%)	.215	
 Hyperuricemia, n (%)	21 (6.3%)	12 (6.0%)	9 (6.6%)	.841	
 Hyperlipemia, n (%)	80 (23.8%)	44 (22.1%)	36 (26.3%)	.378	
 Liver insufficiency, n (%)	21 (6.3%)	15 (7.5%)	6 (4.4%)	.240	
 Chronic kidney disease, n (%)	40 (11.9%)	30 (15.1%)	10 (7.3%)	.031	
 Ischemic stroke, n (%)	40 (11.9%)	23 (11.6%)	17 (12.4%)	.813	
Medication	
 Statins, n (%)	325 (96.7%)	192 (96.5%)	133 (97.1%)	.762	
 Nitrate, n (%)	66 (19.6%)	32 (16.1%)	34 (24.8%)	.723	
 Beta blockers, n (%)	255 (75.9%)	154 (77.4%)	101 (73.7%)	.440	
 RAAS inhibitors, n (%)	270 (80.4%)	160 (80.4%)	110 (80.3%)	.980	
 Calcium channel blockers, n (%)	71 (21.1%)	33 (16.6%)	38 (27.7%)	.443	
 Proton pump inhibitors, n (%)	175 (52.1%)	102 (51.3%)	73 (53.3%)	.715	
 Insulin, n (%)	59 (17.6%)	37 (18.6%)	22 (16.1%)	.548	
 Other hypoglycemic agents, n (%)	35 (10.4%)	19 (9.5%)	16 (11.7%)	.530	
Biomedical indicators	
 Leucocyte, 109/L	6.94 (5.90–8.28)	6.69 (5.90–8.30)	6.79 (5.95–8.00)	.491	
 Neutrophil percentage, n(%)	64.25 (58.33–70.88)	64.90 (58.40–71.30)	63.30 (58.10–69.95)	.337	
 Hemoglobin, g/L	131.50 (120.00–144.00)	133.00 (119.00–144.00)	130.00 (120.00–142.00)	.370	
 Platelets, 109/L	189.00 (151.00–222.00)	189.00 (154.00–224.00)	190.00 (147.00–218.50)	.755	
 Mean platelet volume, fL	11.40 (10.00–12.50)	11.30 (9.90–12.30)	11.60 (10.30–12.60)	.087	
 Platelet distribution width, fL	16.20 (14.30–17.10)	16.10 (14.50–17.00)	16.20 (14.20–17.30)	.421	
 ALT, U/L	24.30 (17.40–36.30)	24.80 (17.70–36.30)	23.70 (17.00–36.40)	.615	
 AST, U/L	21.40 (16.30–29.78)	22.20 (16.80–32.40)	21.20 (15.70–27.80)	.103	
 Creatinine, μmol/L	77.10 (63.20-.92.13)	78.30 (64.90–94.70)	74.50 (61.55–89.15)	.184	
 eGFR, mL/min	88.0 (73.00–96.00)	87.00 (74.00–95.00)	88.00 (72.50–97.00)	.787	
 Total cholesterol, mmol/L	3.76 (3.11–4.49)	3.76 (3.10–4.53)	3.78 (3.12–4.48)	.749	
 Triglyceride, mmol/L	1.47 (1.13–1.96)	1.47 (1.09–1.92)	1.47 (1.19–2.12)	.482	
 Myoglobin,	33.90 (33.90–68.53)	49.50 (35.60–71.70)	44.80 (31.75–63.75)	.124	
 Hs-cTnI, ng/mL	0.05 (0.02–0.05)	0.05 (0.02–0.05)	0.05 (0.02–0.05)	.744	
 Glycosylated hemoglobin, %	6.35 (5.30–7.40)	6.40 (5.40–7.50)	6.30 (5.30–7.30)	.390	
 FBG, mmol/L	5.67 (4.56–7.15)	5.56 (4.50–6.81)	5.98 (4.72–7.32)	.141	
Coronary angiography	
 Single-vessel disease, n (%)	89 (26.5%)	60 (30.2%)	29 (21.2%)	.067	
 Double-vessel disease, n (%)	127 (37.8%)	71 (35.7%)	56 (40.8%)	.334	
 Triple-vessel disease, n (%)	120 (35.7%)	68 (34.4%)	52 (38.0%)	.477	
Data were expressed as n (%) and median (IQR); IQR, interquartile range; P value, Mann–Whitney U test or Pearson Chi-square test.

ACS = acute coronary syndrome, ALT = alanine aminotransferase, AST = aspartate aminotransferase, BMI = body mass index, DBP = diastolic blood pressure, eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate, FBG = fasting blood glucose, GI = gastrointestinal, Hs-cTnI = hypersensitive cardiac troponin I, LV = left ventricular, MI = myocardial infarction, NSTEMI = non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention, RAAS = renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, SBP = systolic blood pressure, STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, UAP = unstable angina pectoris.

3.2. Clinical outcomes

At 6 months, the proportion of the composite endpoint in the clopidogrel group was lower than in the ticagrelor group in terms of efficacy outcome, but there were no significant differences of the related ischemic subfactors between the 2 groups (23.1% vs 13.9%, P = .041). In the safety outcome, there were more bleeding events defined with BARC in the ticagrelor group compared to the clopidogrel group (25.6% vs 13.9%, P = .009), especially in the BARC type 2 (6.5% vs 1.5%, P = .027). The bleeding risk in the ticagrelor group had a tendency to increase (Table 2).

Table 2 Clinical outcomes in ACS patients with LV dysfunction undergoing PCI.

	Total (n = 336)	Ticagrelor plus aspirin (n = 199)	Clopidogrel plus aspirin (n = 137)	P value	
Efficacy outcome	
 Composite endpoint	65 (19.3%)	46 (23.1%)	19 (13.9%)	.041	
 Death	8 (2.4%)	6 (2.5%)	2 (1.5%)	.579	
 MI	1 (0.3%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1.000	
 Stroke	5 (1.5%)	3 (1.5%)	2 (1.5%)	1.000	
 Revascularization	26 (7.7%)	17 (8.5%)	9 (6.6%)	.506	
 Rehospitalization	25 (7.4%)	19 (9.5%)	6 (4.4%)	.076	
Safety outcome	
 BARC 1 to 5	70 (20.8%)	51 (25.6%)	19 (13.9%)	.009	
  BARC 1	46 (13.7%)	31 (15.6%)	15 (10.9%)	.225	
  BARC 2	15 (4.5%)	13 (6.5%)	2 (1.5%)	.027	
  BARC 3	6 (1.8%)	4 (2.0%)	2 (1.5%)	1.000	
  BARC 4	1 (0.3%)	1 (0.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1.000	
  BARC 5	2 (0.5%)	2 (1.0%)	0 (0.0%)	.513	
Data were expressed as n (%) and median (IQR); IQR, interquartile range; P value, Pearson Chi-Square test, Continuity correction test or Fisher exact test.

Composite endpoint including: death, nonfatal MI, stroke, target vessel revascularization, and rehospitalization.

ACS = acute coronary syndrome, BARC = Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition for bleeding, LV = left ventricular, MI = myocardial infarction, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

3.3. Risk factors

Demographic characteristics, medical history, medications, cardiac function, biomedical indicators, results of coronary angiography and drug use were included in the logistic regression model analysis (Tables S1 and S2, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MD/N520). After calibration analysis, multivariate model showed that age (P = .006), hypertension (P = .007), liver insufficiency (P = .022), previous MI (P = .014) and ticagrelor (P = .044) were independent risk factors that affected the efficacy outcome (Table 3). The same logistic regression model was conducted, and age (P = .027) and ticagrelor (P = .016) were independent risk factors for the safety endpoint (Table 4).

Table 3 Risk factors for composite endpoint of ACS patients with LV dysfunction undergoing PCI in multivariable analysis.

Variable	Multivariable
OR (95% CI)	P1 value	Multivariable
HR (95% CI)	P2 value	
Age, yr	1.06 (1.02–1.10)	.006	1.03 (1.00–1.07)	.040	
Ejection fraction	–	–	–	–	
History	
 Hypertension	2.65 (1.31–5.35)	.007	2.13 (1.23–4.04)	.020	
 Liver insufficiency	3.29 (1.19–9.08)	.022	2.78 (1.32–5.85)	.007	
 Chronic kidney disease	–	–	1.98 (1.07–3.66)	.031	
 Previous MI	2.38 (1.19–4.75)	.014	2.28 (1.32–3.94)	.003	
Biomedical indicator	
 Hemoglobin	–	–	–	–	
 eGFR	–	–	–	–	
Grouping	
 Ticagrelor vs clopidogrel (as reference)	1.88 (1.02–3.48)	.044	–	–	
95% CI = 95% confidence interval, ACS = acute coronary syndrome, eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate, HR = hazard ratio, LV = left ventricular, MI = myocardial infarction, OR = odds ratio, P1 = Logistic regression analysis, P2 = COX survival analysis, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

Table 4 Risk factors for BARC of ACS patients with LV dysfunction undergoing PCI in multivariable analysis.

Variable	Multivariable
OR (95% CI)	P1 value	Multivariable
HR (95% CI)	P2 value	
Age, years	1.04 (1.00–1.08)	.027	1.04 (1.01–1.07)	.018	
History	
 Chronic kidney disease	2.05 (0.97–4.34)	.061	1.97 (1.09–3.56)	.025	
 Previous coronary stent implantation	1.93 (1.00–3.76)	.052	1.59 (0.92–2.73)	.098	
 Previous GI bleeding	2.19 (0.58–8.29)	.249	1.74 (0.64–4.74)	.276	
Biomedical indicator	
 Triglyceride	1.20 (0.94–1.53)	.140	1.11 (0.98–1.27)	.107	
 Glycosylated hemoglobin	1.20 (0.99–1.39)	.073	1.15 (0.99–1.33)	.062	
Grouping	
 ticagrelor vs clopidogrel (as reference)	2.08 (1.15–3.85)	.016	2.00 (1.17–3.40)	.011	
95% CI = 95% confidence interval, ACS = acute coronary syndrome, BARC = Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition for bleeding, eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate, GI = gastrointestinal, HR = hazard ratio, LV = left ventricular, OR = odds ratio, P1 = Logistic regression analysis, P2 = COX survival analysis, PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

Univariate and multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression models were employed to identify the risk factors influencing the clinical outcomes (Tables S3 and S4, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/MD/N520), and the inclusion variables were as mentioned above. After calibration analysis, age (P = .040), hypertension (P = .020), liver insufficiency (P = .007), chronic kidney disease (P = .031) and previous MI (P = .003) were found to be independent factors influencing the survival rate of the efficacy endpoint in the multivariate model (Table 3). Moreover, age (P = .018) and chronic kidney disease (P = .025) were found to be independent factors influencing the survival rate of the safety endpoint in the multivariate model (Table 4).

3.4. Survival analysis

We further compared the endpoint events in the 6-month follow-up between the 2 different treatment groups. We observed that the survival rate of the composite endpoint in the clopidogrel group was seemingly higher than in the ticagrelor group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 0.97–2.90, P = .065) (Fig. 2A). The survival rate of the bleeding endpoint in the clopidogrel group was higher than in the ticagrelor group (HR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.17–3.40, P = .011) (Fig. 2B).

Figure 2. (A) Event-free survival for composite of efficacy outcome in ACS patients with LV dysfunction. The survival rate of the efficacy endpoint in the clopidogrel group did not exhibit significant difference compared to in the ticagrelor group. (B) Event-free survival for bleeding events defined by the BARC criteria in ACS patients with LV dysfunction. The survival rate of the bleeding endpoint in the clopidogrel group was higher than in the ticagrelor group.

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, few studies focused on the comparative effectiveness and safety of various antiplatelet regimens in patients with ACS and LV dysfunction undergoing PCI. The main findings of our study conducted on a Chinese population indicated that ticagrelor had a negative impact on the survival rate of the efficacy outcome and increased the all-cause occurrence of safety outcome in patients with ACS and LV dysfunction compared to clopidogrel.

LV dysfunction is a complex clinical syndrome characterized by abnormalities in ventricular systole and diastole, caused by abnormal cardiac function and structure. Patients with reduced LV EF demonstrated a higher burden of cardiovascular risks and comorbidities, along with more intricate coronary anatomy and lesional features.[17] For patients with ACS and LV dysfunction, PCI is the preferred treatment which improving myocardial blood perfusion, activating hibernating cells in necrotic myocardium, and promoting cardiac remodeling and functional recovery.[18] Compared to medical treatment alone, it offers superior clinical benefits.[19] Previous studies have demonstrated that many risk factors weigh heavy for the clinical outcomes of patients after PCI.[14,20–22] Gallone et.al[13] discovered that decreased LV EF (<40%) served as a strong predictor for predicting long-term adverse clinical outcomes in patients who underwent PCI. Moreover, each 10% increase in LV EF being associated with a 44% reduction in 4-year post-PCI mortality.[23] Besides, it has been observed that hemodynamic abnormalities and thrombotic events are more common in patients with LV dysfunction,[24] and a sufficient antiplatelet effect in ACS patients would suppress micro thromboembolism induced by coronary reperfusion.[25] Therefore, the potency of the antiplatelet regimen holds significant importance for patients with ACS and LV dysfunction.

Ticagrelor is developed as a novel P2Y12 receptor antagonist that remains unaffected by genetic polymorphism in CYP2C19. It circumvents the clinical limitations of clopidogrel, including liver metabolism, drug interactions, and gene polymorphisms that code for platelet receptors, resulting in more potent and predictable antiplatelet effects.[26,27] Ticagrelor has been shown to enhance adenosine levels by inhibiting its reuptake by erythrocytes, and adenosine has the potential to regulate inflammatory response and promote vasodilation.[28] The Global Phase III PLATO trial demonstrated that ticagrelor exhibited a significant reduction in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) when compared to clopidogrel over a 12-month period. However, it was observed that ticagrelor carried a similar risk for major bleeding as clopidogrel.[26] Another retrospective multicenter study showed that ticagrelor exhibited a superior benefit-risk profile for MACEs than clopidogrel in ACS patients.[11] However, several studies have yielded divergent findings. Spoendlin et.al demonstrated that there was no significant difference observed in 2 separate comparisons between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups among patients with ACS.[29] Similar results were also found in researches conducted in East Asian population with different ethnic groups.[30–32] It is noteworthy that the ticagrelor group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to the clopidogrel group in our study. Based on the current clinical evidence, it can be inferred that ticagrelor exhibits an antithrombotic efficacy that is at least comparable to, if not superior to, clopidogrel in the majority of ethnic groups. This disparity might primarily be attributed to the varying composite endpoints across different studies. A deeper analysis revealed that a higher proportion of patients hospitalized for angina occurred in the ticagrelor group, rather than the MACE-related cardiovascular events. Furthermore, the variance in follow-up time might also have influenced the final clinical outcomes.

Antithrombotic therapy plays a crucial role as a secondary prevention in ACS patients after PCI. But antithrombosis benefits were partially offset by an elevated risk of bleeding events, which was strongly associated with increased mortality.[33] The phenomenon known as the “East Asian Paradox” suggests that East Asian patients are more susceptible to experiencing bleeding complications related to antithrombotic therapy than non-East Asian patients.[34] Ethnic differences play a significant role in the development of atherosclerotic thrombosis, as evidenced by variations in coagulation, fibrinolysis, and inflammation markers.[35] Additionally, it is widely recognized that Asian patients exhibit a lower BMI, and a higher prevalence of CYP2C19 dysfunction gene carriers.[36,37] Therefore, it is necessary to consider the intricate balance between ischemia and bleeding complications and further optimize the antiplatelet strategy to improving patient outcomes. The East Asian Phase III PHILO trial demonstrated that ticagrelor, in comparison to clopidogrel, exhibited a higher frequency of bleeding events but did not significantly reduce the composite primary efficacy endpoint.[30] A recent study conducted in Taiwan has revealed that ticagrelor was associated with higher MACEs and major bleeding risk within 12 months in patients with ACS and who were on dialysis than clopidogrel.[38] Besides, the use of ticagrelor has not been shown to improve the efficacy outcome but significantly increased the number of major bleeding events compared with clopidogrel treatment in ACS patients with diabetes mellitus from other East Asian countries.[14,31]

In our study, we also found that age and chronic kidney disease were potential risk factors of the composite (safety) endpoint. Moreover, our results demonstrated that different antithrombotic regimens had a significant impact on bleeding events during follow-up in patients with ACS and LV dysfunction in the multivariate model for calibration analysis. Studies have compared the prognostic differences of different regimens in people with combined risk factors, including those aged > 70 years old, female and with a history of diabetes mellitus.[39–42] While there were little data about the clinical impact of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with LV dysfunction. A previous study did not support the use of triple antithrombotic therapy (the addition of oral anticoagulation to DAPT) as a strategy over conventional ticagrelor-based DAPT for patients with apical dysfunction after MI who were treated with PCI.[43] It is suggested that the implementation of a robust antithrombotic regimen may not yield superior clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac dysfunction after PCI. Our study also found that compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor with stronger antithrombotic effect did not show better clinical benefit in patients with LV dysfunction undergoing PCI due to more bleeding events. Clopidogrel based DAPT may be a safer alternative than ticagrelor. In future research endeavors, it is imperative to accord greater emphasis to these unique individuals who possess specific comorbidities. By accumulating a robust corpus of evidence-based medical data, we can devise more tailored and rational postoperative medication protocols for patients undergoing PCI.

There are still several limitations in the present study. First, although nearly 5 consecutive years of patients were enrolled, the number of patients included was relatively small. The conclusions need to be further confirmed in multicenter studies with large samples. Second, the use of the study drugs may have varied among different centers because of some factors such as the financial ability of patients and the clinical experience of physicians. Thirdly, we did not collect sufficient postoperative out-of-hospital information, which may have an impact on the clinical prognosis, such as lifestyle, medication and other factors. Lastly, due to differences in baseline clinical characteristics that may have influenced our results, we corrected for these differences by performing a multivariable analysis that included a wide range of variables. However, the findings of this retrospective study should be interpreted cautiously due to the lack of a high-standard match.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the results of the present analysis indicated that patients with ACS and LV dysfunction who undergoing PCI had higher risks of experiencing the composite endpoint (death, nonfatal MI, stroke, target vessel revascularization, and rehospitalization) and bleeding events during the 6-month follow-up when treated with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor needs to be approached with caution and we considered that clopidogrel may be a more suitable option over ticagrelor for this particular population. Furthermore, large-scale, long-term, randomized trials should be conducted imperatively to verify these conclusions.

Acknowledgments

We appreciated all the subjects who participated in the study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: Renzheng Chen, Hualin Zhang.

Data curation: Caitong Zhao, Changdong Fei, Renzheng Chen.

Formal analysis: Caitong Zhao, Changdong Fei, Renzheng Chen.

Funding acquisition: Yupeng Liu.

Investigation: Caitong Zhao, Changdong Fei.

Methodology: Caitong Zhao, Changdong Fei, Renzheng Chen.

Project administration: Yupeng Liu, Hualin Zhang.

Resources: Yupeng Liu, Hualin Zhang.

Software: Caitong Zhao, Renzheng Chen.

Supervision: Yupeng Liu, Hualin Zhang.

Validation: Yupeng Liu, Hualin Zhang.

Visualization: Yupeng Liu.

Writing – original draft: Renzheng Chen, Hualin Zhang.

Writing – review & editing: Changdong Fei, Yupeng Liu.

Supplementary Material

Abbreviations:

ACS acute coronary syndrome

BARC Bleeding Academic Research Consortium

DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy

EF ejection fraction

HR hazard ratio

LV left ventricular

MACEs major adverse cardiovascular events

MI myocardial infarction

PCI percutaneous coronary intervention

This work was supported by grants from the China Red Cross Foundation Medical empowerment public welfare special fund (Grant No. CRCF-YXFN-202201047).

Consent to treatment has been obtained. The patient agreed to the use of her imaging and clinical data for publication and academic research and provided written informed consent.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article.

How to cite this article: Zhao C, Fei C, Chen R, Liu Y, Zhang H. Comparison of clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and left ventricle dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational study. Medicine 2024;103:36(e39620).

RC, CZ, and CF have contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

[1] Bergmark BA Mathenge N Merlini PA Lawrence-Wright MB Giugliano RP . Acute coronary syndromes. Lancet. 2022;399 :1347–58.35367005
[2] Bhatt DL Lopes RD Harrington RA . Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndromes: a review. JAMA. 2022;327 :662–75.35166796
[3] Bangalore S Kumar S Fusaro M . Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125 :2873–91.22586281
[4] Farhan S Baber U Mehran R . Anemia and acute coronary syndrome: time for intervention studies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5 :e004908.27866165
[5] Keller PF Carballo D Roffi M . Diabetes and acute coronary syndrome. Minerva Med. 2010;101 :81–104.20467408
[6] Lopes RD Alexander KP Stevens SR . Initial invasive versus conservative management of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with a history of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction: insights from the ISCHEMIA trial. Circulation. 2020;142 :1725–35.32862662
[7] Daubert MA Massaro J Liao L . High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with reverse left ventricular remodeling and improved outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. Am Heart J. 2015;170 :550–8.26385039
[8] Valgimigli M Bueno H Byrne RA . ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39 :213–60.28886622
[9] Becker RC Bassand JP Budaj A . Bleeding complications with the P2Y12 receptor antagonists clopidogrel and ticagrelor in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32 :2933–44.22090660
[10] Franchi F Angiolillo DJ . Novel antiplatelet agents in acute coronary syndrome. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12 :30–47.25286881
[11] James S Angiolillo DJ Cornel JH .; PLATO Study Group. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and diabetes: a substudy from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Eur Heart J. 2010;31 :3006–16.20802246
[12] Kang J Kim HS . The evolving concept of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: focus on unique feature of East Asian and “Asian Paradox”. Korean Circ J. 2018;48 :537–51.29968428
[13] Gallone G Kang J Bruno F . Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on procedural and long-term outcomes of bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2022;172 :18–25.35365291
[14] He P Luo X Li J . Clinical outcome between ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and diabetes. Cardiovasc Ther. 2021;2021 :5546260.34737792
[15] Thygesen K Alpert JS Jaffe AS . Executive Group on behalf of the Joint European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/World Heart Federation (WHF) Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72 :2231–64.30153967
[16] Mehran R Rao SV Bhatt DL . Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011;123 :2736–47.21670242
[17] McDonagh TA Metra M Adamo M .; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42 :3599–726.34447992
[18] Hedström E Aström-Olsson K Ohlin AK Ohlin H Arheden H . Initial results of inflammatory response, matrix remodeling, and reactive oxygen species following PCI in acute ischemic myocardial injury in man. J Invasive Cardiol. 2011;23 :371–6.21891809
[19] Sundaram V Bloom C Zakeri R . Temporal trends in the incidence, treatment patterns, and outcomes of coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease in the UK, 2006-2015. Eur Heart J. 2020;41 :1636–49.31883328
[20] Pohlen M Bunzemeier H Husemann W Roeder N Breithardt G Reinecke H . Risk predictors for adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions and their related costs. Clin Res Cardiol. 2008;97 :441–8.18317668
[21] Zibaeenezhad MJ Mohammadi SS Sayadi M Khorshidi S Bahramali E Razeghian-Jahromi I . The impact of diabetes mellitus and hypertension on clinical outcomes in a population of Iranian patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019;21 :1647–53.31553131
[22] Ashraf T Khan MN Afaque SM . Clinical and procedural predictors and short-term survival of the patients with no reflow phenomenon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol. 2019;294 :27–31.31387823
[23] Farooq V Vergouwe Y Räber L . Combined anatomical and clinical factors for the long-term risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score. Eur Heart J. 2012;33 :3098–104.23048195
[24] Moreira HT Volpe GJ Mesquita GM . Association of left ventricular abnormalities with incident cerebrovascular events and sources of thromboembolism in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2022;24 :52.36329520
[25] Kitano D Takayama T Fukamachi D . Impact of low-dose prasugrel on platelet reactivity and cardiac dysfunction in acute coronary syndrome patients requiring primary drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized comparative study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95 :E8–E16.30983087
[26] Wallentin L Becker RC Budaj A . PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361 :1045–57.19717846
[27] Wiviott SD Braunwald E Angiolillo DJ . TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Greater clinical benefit of more intensive oral antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus in the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38. Circulation. 2008;118 :1626–36.18757948
[28] Vilahur G Gutiérrez M Casani L . Protective effects of ticagrelor on myocardial injury after infarction. Circulation. 2016;134 :1708–19.27789556
[29] Spoendlin J Gagne JJ Lewey JJ Patorno E Schneeweiss S Desai RJ . Comparative effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet drugs in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndrome. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018;27 :1361–70.30379372
[30] Goto S Huang CH Park SJ Emanuelsson H Kimura T . Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese patients with acute coronary syndrome – randomized, double-blind, phase III PHILO study. Circ J. 2015;79 :2452–60.26376600
[31] Ahn KT Seong SW Choi UL . Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry - National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) Investigators. Comparison of 1-year clinical outcomes between prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in type 2 diabetes patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Medicine (Baltim). 2019;98 :e14833.
[32] Lee CH Tsai TH Lin CJ Hsueh SK Chung WJ Cheng CI . Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with end-stage renal disease with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2019;19 :325–34.30746615
[33] Piccolo R Magnani G Ariotti S . Ischaemic and bleeding outcomes in elderly patients undergoing a prolonged versus shortened duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the PRODIGY randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2017;13 :78–86.28044986
[34] Jeong YH . “East asian paradox”: challenge for the current antiplatelet strategy of “one-guideline-fits-all races” in acute coronary syndrome. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2014;16 :485.24668607
[35] Gurbel PA Bliden KP Cohen E . Race and sex differences in thrombogenicity: risk of ischemic events following coronary stenting. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2008;19 :268–75.18469547
[36] Shen AY Yao JF Brar SS Jorgensen MB Chen W . Racial/ethnic differences in the risk of intracranial hemorrhage among patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50 :309–15.17659197
[37] Levine GN Jeong YH Goto S . World heart federation expert consensus statement on antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients with ACS or undergoing PCI. Glob Heart. 2014;9 :457–67.25592800
[38] Li YS Wang SH Hwang SJ Yang YH Hsieh KP . Comparison of effectiveness and safety between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and on dialysis in Taiwan. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88 :145–54.34080719
[39] Gimbel M Qaderdan K Willemsen L . Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2020;395 :1374–81.32334703
[40] Park DW Kwon O Jang JS .; TICAKOREA Investigators. Clinically significant bleeding with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Korean patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for invasive management: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2019;140 :1865–77.31553203
[41] Mohamed MO Rashid M Timmis A . Sex differences in distribution, management and outcomes of combined ischemic-bleeding risk following acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol. 2021;329 :16–22.33388397
[42] Lee CH Cheng CL Kao Yang YH Chao TH Chen JY Li YH . Cardiovascular and bleeding risks in acute myocardial infarction newly treated with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in Taiwan. Circ J. 2018;82 :747–56.29081474
[43] Bastiany A Matteau A El-Turaby F . Comparison of systematic ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy to selective triple antithrombotic therapy for left ventricle dysfunction following anterior STEMI. Sci Rep. 2018;8 :10326.29985433
