El uso correcto de los agentes antiplaquetarios después de la intervención coronaria percutánea: una revisión comparativa.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Antoane Marinho Montalvão
Carla Resende Vaz Oliveira
Bruno Cezario Costa Reis

Resumen

Objetivo: Discutir el uso más eficaz de la agregación plaquetaria después de la intervención coronaria percutánea. Métodos: El enfoque metodológico de este trabajo propone una recopilación de investigaciones bibliográficas con enfoque cualitativo y carácter descriptivo a través de una revisión integradora de la literatura en las bases de datos PubMed y Biblioteca Virtual en Salud. Los descriptores utilizados fueron “Inhibidores de la Agregación Plaquetaria” y “Clopidogrel” y “Ticagrelor” e “Intervención Coronaria Percutánea”. Los criterios de inclusión fueron ensayo clínico, ensayo clínico controlado y ensayo controlado aleatorizado, publicados en inglés, portugués y español, entre 2017 y agosto de 2022. Los medicamentos cubiertos fueron clopidogrel, ticagrelor, aspirina y prasugrel. Resultados: Hubo un total de nueve artículos que concluyeron una mayor efectividad de clopidogrel en relación a Ticagrelor, y en solo uno ticagrelor fue superior. Además, también se vio la eficacia de prasugrel en casos de eventos adversos coronarios mayores en comparación con clopidogrel. Consideraciones finales: Así, se puede recalcar que el ticagrelor no es el fármaco más eficaz para ser utilizado como antiagregante plaquetario estándar en la ICP, tal y como se indica en la guía, debiendo ceder el paso al clopidogrel, salvo en casos especiales concretos, que también pueden variar según el uso de prasugrel.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Cómo citar
MontalvãoA. M., OliveiraC. R. V., & ReisB. C. C. (2022). El uso correcto de los agentes antiplaquetarios después de la intervención coronaria percutánea: una revisión comparativa. Revista Eletrônica Acervo Saúde, 15(11), e11051. https://doi.org/10.25248/reas.e11051.2022
Sección
Revisão Bibliográfica

Citas

1. AHLUWALIA K e BHANWRA S. Antiplatelet therapy: present status and its future directions. International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 2014; 3(2).

2. ALAAMRI S e DALBHI SA. Risk of bleeding with ticagrelor in elderly patients over 75 years old: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine, 2021; e27398–e27398.

3. BUTT JH, et al. Ticagrelor and the risk of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia and other infections. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother, 2022; 13–19.

4. EIKELBOOM JW, et al. Antiplatelet Drugs. Chest, 2012; 141(2): e89S-e119S.

5. FERES F, et al. Diretriz da sociedade brasileira de cardiologia e da sociedade brasileira de hemodinâmica e cardiologia intervencionista sobre intervenção coronária percutânea. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 2017; 109(1).

6. HAHN J-Y, et al. 6-month versus 12-month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART-DATE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet, 2018; 391(10127): 1274–1284.

7. KIM CJ, et al. Unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in stabilised patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TALOS-AMI): an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial. The Lancet, 2021; 398(10308): 1305–1316.

8. KOO B-K, et al. Aspirin versus clopidogrel for chronic maintenance monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (HOST-EXAM): an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet, 2021; 397(10293): 2487–2496.

9. LI J, et al. Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in East Asian patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Med Res Opin, 2020; 36(11): 1739–1745.

10. LI X-Y, et al. Switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention in real-world China: Occurrences, reasons, and long-term clinical outcomes. Clin Cardiol, 2018; 41(11): 1446–1454.

11. LI Y-S, et al. 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; 145–154.

12. LINDER M e ANDERSEN M. Patient characteristics and safety outcomes in new users of ticagrelor and clopidogrel-An observational cohort study in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2022; 235–246.

13. MOON H, et al. Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel on quality of life in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2021; 242–242.

14. PAN Y, et al. Clopidogrel-induced neutropenia in an 80-year-old patient with chronic kidney disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report and literature review. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022; 40–40.

15. PARK D-W, et al. 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(23): 1865–1877.

16. PEREIRA NL, et al. Effect of Genotype-Guided Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Selection vs Conventional Clopidogrel Therapy on Ischemic Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The TAILOR-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2020; 324(8): 761–771.

17. RODRIGUEZ-ARIAS JJ, et al. Long-Term Vascular Function in CTO Recanalization: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel. Cardiovasc Revasc Med, 2022; 61–67.

18. SHAHID I, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Older Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis. Drugs Aging, 2021; 1003–1016.

19. SIBBING D, et al. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS): a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet, 2017; 390(10104): 1747–1757.

20. SILVAIN J, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ALPHEUS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet, 2020; 396(10264):1737–1744.

21. SILVERTHORN D. Fisiologia Humana: Uma Abordagem Integrada, 7ª Edição, Artmed, 2017.

22. TURGEON RD, et al. Association of Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel With Major Adverse Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Intern Med, 2020; 180(3): 420–428.

23. VRANCKX P, et al. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet, 2018; 392(10151): 940–949.

24. WALLENTIN L, et al. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med, 2009; 361(11):1045–1057.

25. YING L, et al. Intensified antiplatelet therapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention with high on‐treatment platelet reactivity: the OPTImal Management of Antithrombotic Agents (OPTIMA)‐2 Trial. Br J Haematol, 2022; 196(2): 424–432.