ObjectivesThe 30‐day clinical outcomes with prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared using a US payer database in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundPrasugrel and ticagrelor demonstrated superior efficacy with increased non‐coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding compared with clopidogrel in randomized clinical trials. No direct randomized or observational studies have compared clinical outcomes between prasugrel and ticagrelor.MethodsPatients hospitalized for ACS‐PCI between August 1, 2011 and April 30, 2013 and prescribed prasugrel or ticagrelor were selected. Drug treatment cohorts were propensity matched based upon demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary objective compared 30‐day net adverse clinical events (NACE) in prasugrel‐ and ticagrelor‐treated patients using a prespecified 20% noninferiority margin. Secondary objectives included comparisons of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding.ResultsData were available for 16,098 patients (prasugrel, n = 13,134; ticagrelor, n = 2,964). In unmatched cohorts, prasugrel‐treated patients were younger with fewer comorbidities than ticagrelor‐treated patients, and 30‐day NACE rates were 5.6 and 9.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). Following propensity matching, NACE was noninferior (P < 0.001) and 22% lower in prasugrel‐treated than in ticagrelor‐treated patients (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64–0.94). A 30‐day adjusted MACE (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64–0.98) and major bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.95) were also lower in prasugrel‐treated patients compared with ticagrelor‐treated patients.ConclusionsIn this “real‐world,” retrospective, observational study, physicians appear to preferentially use prasugrel in younger patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities compared with ticagrelor. Following adjustment, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel use appear as good, if not better, than those associated with ticagrelor in ACS‐PCI patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Support surfaces remain an integral component of pressure injury prevention and treatment. Recent research and new technologies coupled with new standards testing created a need for revision of past terms and definitions related to support surfaces. These terms and definitions have been developed to provide a common understanding of terms that refer to basic physical concepts, design considerations, and product characteristics. Thus, the purpose of this document is to provide a glossary of terms and definitions that are specific to the language used within the Support Surface Standards Initiative, and serve as a lexicon to facilitate and provide clarity of understanding regarding performance evaluation and the standardized testing protocols. Based on the work of the Support Surface Standards Initiative (S3I) of the NPUAP, new terms and definitions were added, and all were compiled into an alphabetical list to facilitate ease of use. While this is a comprehensive and inclusive list, periodic review and revision is required. The bibliography, of necessity, includes classic references for terms for which the definitions have not changed. The foundational definition of a support surface used in this document is: "A specialized device for pressure redistribution designed for management of tissue loads, micro-climate, and/or other therapeutic functions (e.g. any mattresses, integrated bed system, mattress replacement, overlay, or seat cushion, or seat cushion overlay)."