Contemporary Use of Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Objective To evaluate potential gains in outcomes from ticagrelor-based strategy according to risk stratification by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score. Methods A total of 19,704 patients discharged alive post–acute coronary syndrome who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and received ticagrelor or clopidogrel between March 2016 and March 2019 were included in the study. The primary endpoint was ischemic events at 12 months, composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and/or stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5 and 3 to 5 bleeding. Results The ticagrelor group comprised 6432 (32.6%) patients and the clopidogrel group comprised 13,272 (67.4%) patients. During the follow-up period, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of ischemic events in patients treated using ticagrelor who had excessive risk of bleeding. According to the GRACE score, among low-risk patients, ticagrelor use compared with clopidogrel was not associated with decreased ischemic events (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.17; P=.27) with excessive risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.17; P=.004). The risk of ischemic events (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.89; P=.01) were lower in the intermediate- to high-risk patients treated with ticagrelor without significant difference in BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding risk (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.65; P=.61). Conclusion There was still a gap between guideline-indicated therapy and the clinical practice in a sizable subset of patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The GRACE risk score could identify patients who would derive benefit from the ticagrelor-based antiplatelet strategy.