Objectives. To investigate outcome with selective, clopidogrel-based therapies vs conventional treatment in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially for acute coronary syndrome.
Background. Safety and efficacy of alternative, selective, clopidogrel-based therapies after PCI are not robustly established.
Methods. We performed a study-level meta-analysis on six randomized trials investigating selective clopidogrel-based therapies (three on unguided de-escalation, N=3,473; three on guided clopidogrel therapy, N=7,533). Control groups received ticagrelor or prasugrel treatment. Main endpoints were major bleeding, any bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and net clinical endpoint.
Results. The incidence of major bleeding and MACE was similar in the selective, clopidogrel-based therapy vs conventional treatment arm (OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·51-1·01, p=0·06; OR 0·93, 0·72-1·20, p=0·58; respectively). The rates of any bleeding were lower in the selective, clopidogrel-based therapy vs conventional treatment group (OR 0·57, 0·40-0·80, p=0·001); this greater safety was significant for unguided de-escalation (OR 0·43, 0·32-0·58, p=0·00001) and non-significant for guided clopidogrel therapy (OR 0·72, 0·51-1·02, p=0·07; p for interaction 0·03). The incidence of the net clinical endpoint was fewer in the selective, clopidogrel-based therapy vs conventional treatment arm (OR 0·59, 0·41-0·85, p=0·004); this benefit was significant for unguided de-escalation (OR 0·50, 0·39-0·64, p<0·00001) and non-significant for guided clopidogrel therapy (OR 0·85, 0·62-1·16, p=0·30; p for interaction 0·01).
Conclusions. As compared with prasugrel/ticagrelor treatment, alternative, selective, clopidogrel-based approaches provide a similar protection from cardiovascular events, reduce the risk of any bleeding and are associated with a greater net benefit. These beneficial effects were prevalent with unguided de-escalation to clopidogrel.