TY - JOUR
T1 - Safety of ticagrelor in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities
T2 - A PLATO (Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) analysis
AU - On behalf of the PLATO Steering Committee and Investigators
AU - Scirica, Benjamin M.
AU - Bansilal, Sameer
AU - Davoudi, Farideh
AU - Armstrong, Paul W.
AU - Clare, Robert M.
AU - Schulte, Phillip J.
AU - Pieper, Karen S.
AU - Becker, Richard C.
AU - James, Stefan K.
AU - Storey, Robert F.
AU - Steg, Philippe Gabriel
AU - Held, Claes
AU - Himmelmann, Anders
AU - Mahaffey, Kenneth W.
AU - Wallentin, Lars
AU - Cannon, Christopher P.
N1 - Funding Information:
The PLATO study was funded by AstraZeneca . Support for the analysis and interpretation of results and preparation of the manuscript was provided through funds to the Uppsala Clinical Research Center and Duke Clinical Research Institute as part of the Clinical Study Agreement.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/8
Y1 - 2018/8
N2 - Background: Although bradyarrhythmias have been observed with ticagrelor and its use with advanced atrioventricular block is not recommended, questions arise regarding its use in patients with mild conduction abnormalities. The objectives were to compare rates of clinically relevant arrhythmias in relation to any mild baseline conduction abnormality in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Methods: We included all subjects in the electrocardiographic (ECG) substudy of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial, excluding those with missing baseline ECG or with a pacemaker at baseline (N = 15,460). Conduction abnormality was defined as sinus bradycardia, first-degree atrioventricular block, hemiblock, or bundle-branch block. The primary arrhythmic outcome was the composite of any symptomatic brady- or tachyarrhythmia, permanent pacemaker placement, or cardiac arrest through 12 months. Results: Patients with baseline conduction abnormalities (n = 4,256, 27.5%) were older and more likely to experience the primary arrhythmic outcome. There were no differences by ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the composite arrhythmic end point in those with baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: 17% for both study arms; hazard ratio: 0.99 [0.86-1.15]) or without baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: clopidogrel 12.8% vs ticagrelor 12.4%; hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.88-1.09). There were also no statistically significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the rates of bradycardic (or any individual arrhythmic) events in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities. Conclusions: Ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel did not increase arrhythmic events even in subjects with acute coronary syndrome who present with mild conduction abnormalities on their baseline ECG.
AB - Background: Although bradyarrhythmias have been observed with ticagrelor and its use with advanced atrioventricular block is not recommended, questions arise regarding its use in patients with mild conduction abnormalities. The objectives were to compare rates of clinically relevant arrhythmias in relation to any mild baseline conduction abnormality in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Methods: We included all subjects in the electrocardiographic (ECG) substudy of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial, excluding those with missing baseline ECG or with a pacemaker at baseline (N = 15,460). Conduction abnormality was defined as sinus bradycardia, first-degree atrioventricular block, hemiblock, or bundle-branch block. The primary arrhythmic outcome was the composite of any symptomatic brady- or tachyarrhythmia, permanent pacemaker placement, or cardiac arrest through 12 months. Results: Patients with baseline conduction abnormalities (n = 4,256, 27.5%) were older and more likely to experience the primary arrhythmic outcome. There were no differences by ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the composite arrhythmic end point in those with baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: 17% for both study arms; hazard ratio: 0.99 [0.86-1.15]) or without baseline conduction disease (1-year cumulative incidence rate: clopidogrel 12.8% vs ticagrelor 12.4%; hazard ratio: 0.98 (0.88-1.09). There were also no statistically significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the rates of bradycardic (or any individual arrhythmic) events in patients with baseline conduction abnormalities. Conclusions: Ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel did not increase arrhythmic events even in subjects with acute coronary syndrome who present with mild conduction abnormalities on their baseline ECG.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047723591&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047723591&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.04.020
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.04.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 29859968
AN - SCOPUS:85047723591
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 202
SP - 54
EP - 60
JO - American heart journal
JF - American heart journal
ER -