Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study
Primary resultResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 0.98 95% CI 0.55–1.73- prematurely terminated for futility
- Prematurely terminated for futility
Authors' conclusion
This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy.
Study context
- Population
- Acute MI treated with primary or immediate PCI
- Participants
- 1,230 participants
- Comparison
- Prasugrel vs ticagrelor
- Primary endpoint
- Death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization
- Follow-up
- 7 days
Methodological detailsmulticentre (14 sites), 30-day data presented; 1-year follow-up to be completed in 2017
- Multicentre (14 sites)
- 30-day data presented; 1-year follow-up to be completed in 2017
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Odds ratio
0.98
95% CI 0.55–1.73
P = 0.939
By group
Prasugrel vs Ticagrelor
OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.55–1.73); P = 0.939
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Prasugrel | Ticagrelor | OR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key secondary end point: CV death, nonfatal MI or stroke · 30 days | 2.7% | 2.5% | 1.06 (0.53–2.15) | P = 0.864 | |
| 0.512Odds ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study. Circulation. Published 30 August 2016. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it