Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes

  • Stephen D. Wiviott
  • , Eugene Braunwald
  • , Carolyn H. McCabe
  • , Gilles Montalescot
  • , Witold Ruzyllo
  • , Shmuel Gottlieb
  • , Franz Joseph Neumann
  • , Diego Ardissino
  • , Stefano De Servi
  • , Sabina A. Murphy
  • , Jeffrey Riesmeyer
  • , Govinda Weerakkody
  • , C. Michael Gibson
  • , Elliott M. Antman*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital
  • Sorbonne Université
  • Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski Institute of Cardiology
  • Bikur Cholim Hospital
  • University of Freiburg
  • University of Parma
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Civile di Legano
  • Eli Lilly

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

6475 Scopus citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine is a cornerstone of treatment to prevent thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: To compare prasugrel, a new thienopyridine, with clopidogrel, we randomly assigned 13,608 patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention to receive prasugrel (a 60-mg loading dose and a 10-mg daily maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (a 300-mg loading dose and a 75-mg daily maintenance dose), for 6 to 15 months. The primary efficacy end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The key safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The primary efficacy end point occurred in 12.1% of patients receiving clopidogrel and 9.9% of patients receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.90; P<0.001). We also found significant reductions in the prasugrel group in the rates of myocardial infarction (9.7% for clopidogrel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 1.1%; P<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 2.4% of patients receiving prasugrel and in 1.8% of patients receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.68; P = 0.03). Also greater in the prasugrel group was the rate of life-threatening bleeding (1.4% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.01), including nonfatal bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 1.25; P = 0.23) and fatal bleeding (0.4% vs. 0.1%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly reduced rates of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, but with an increased risk of major bleeding, including fatal bleeding. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097591.)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2001-2015
Number of pages15
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Volume357
Issue number20
DOIs
StatePublished - 15 Nov 2007
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this