Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/320
Abbottabad University of Science and Technology
*Corresponding Author: Khalid Javed, Abbottabad University of Science and Technology.
Citation: Khalid Javed, Muhammad Shafiq (2023), Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin Therapy in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes, and History of PCI, J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 6(5); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/320
Copyright: © 2023, Khalid Javed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 08 May 2023 | Accepted: 17 May 2023 | Published: 29 May 2023
Keywords: stable coronary artery disease (cad); percutaneous coronary intervention (pci); major adverse cardiovascular events (mace)
This research study focused specifically on patients with stable coronary artery disease, diabetes, and a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study evaluated the use of Ticagrelor plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone in this population. The combination therapy reduced the risk of MACE compared to aspirin alone but was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. The study showed that Ticagrelor monotherapy, without aspirin, resulted in a lower risk of bleeding events without increasing the risk of MACE compared to dual antiplatelet therapy with Ticagrelor and aspirin
Icagrelor inhibit the platelet activation and aggregation by reversable inhabitation of P2Y12 ADP-receptor. The drug alone and in combination with aspirin and other antiplatelet aggregation inhibitors is used to prevent MACE in patients with history of PCI and Diabetes. Aspirin is another inhibitor of platelet aggregation by irreversible inhibition of platelet cyclooxygenase and thromboxane A2. Patients with stable CAD, diabetes, and a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The use of dual antiplatelet therapy, such as Ticagrelor plus aspirin, has been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of MACE in patients with CAD and diabetes. However, this approach is associated with an increased risk of bleeding, which can be particularly concerning in this patient population.
The primary objective of this study was to assess the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with the use of Ticagrelor plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone in patients with stable CAD, diabetes, and a history of PCI. The study aimed to determine whether the combination therapy provides superior efficacy in preventing MACE compared to aspirin monotherapy. Hypotheses are:
1. The use of Ticagrelor plus aspirin will significantly reduce the risk of MACE compared to aspirin alone in patients with stable CAD, diabetes, and a history of PCI.
2. Dual antiplatelet therapy with Ticagrelor plus aspirin will be associated with a higher risk of bleeding events compared to aspirin monotherapy.
3. Ticagrelor monotherapy, without aspirin, will result in a lower risk of bleeding events without increasing the risk of MACE compared to dual antiplatelet therapy with Ticagrelor and aspirin.
An analytical survey design was employed for this study. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria (stable CAD, diabetes, history of PCI) were identified from medical records at a selected healthcare facility. Eligible patients were approached and invited to participate in the study. Data collection involved a combination of medical record review and participant interviews. Medical records were reviewed to collect demographic information, medical history, and baseline characteristics of the participants. Structured interviews were conducted to gather additional data on medication use, clinical outcomes, and adverse events. Data collection was carried out by trained research personnel.
The variables considered in this study included:
• Treatment group: Ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone.
• Primary outcome: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite endpoint including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death.
• Secondary outcome: Bleeding events, categorized as major bleeding events and minor bleeding events.
• Demographic variables: Age, gender, and ethnicity.
• Clinical variables: Body mass index, duration of diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and previous PCI-related factors.
• Medication use: Concomitant medications, dosage, and duration of therapy.
Data analysis involved regression analysis and chi-square testing. Regression analysis was used to assess the association between the treatment group (Ticagrelor plus aspirin or aspirin alone) and the primary outcome (MACE), adjusting for relevant covariates.
Chi-square testing was employed to compare the incidence of bleeding events between the treatment groups. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted, if applicable, to explore potential variations in treatment effects based on specific patient characteristics.
The statistical significance level was set at p < 0>
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the study population. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations or medians with interquartile ranges, depending on the distribution of the data. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between the treatment group (Ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone) and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The regression analysis revealed that the treatment group receiving Ticagrelor plus Aspirin had 28% lower odds of experiencing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to the group receiving Aspirin Alone (odds ratio: 0.72, p-value: 0.043). Age, gender, duration of diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not show statistically significant associations with MACE. This indicates that the combination therapy is effective in reducing MACE risk in patients with stable coronary artery disease, diabetes, and a history of PCI.
| Characteristic | Ticagrelor plus Aspirin (n=100) | Aspirin Alone(n=100) |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 62.5 ± 8.3 | 63.2 ± 7.9 |
| Gender, n (%) | ||
| - Male | 55 (55.0%) | 50 (50.0%) |
| - Female | 45 (45.0%) | 50 (50.0%) |
| Duration of Diabetes (years), median (IQR) | 8.5 (5.0-12.0) | 9.0 (6.0-13.0) |
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (%), mean ± SD | 55.2± 5.6 | 54.8± 6.2 |
| Previous PCI-related Factors, n (%) | ||
| - Stent Placement | 80 (80.0%) | 75 (75.0%) |
| - Balloon Angioplasty | 20 (20.0%) | 25 (25.0%) |
Regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between the treatment group (Ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone) and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The regression analysis revealed that the treatment group receiving Ticagrelor plus Aspirin had 28% lower odds of experiencing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to the group receiving Aspirin Alone (odds ratio: 0.72, p-value: 0.043). Age, gender, duration of diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not show statistically significant associations with MACE. This indicates that the combination therapy is effective in reducing MACE risk in patients with stable coronary artery disease, diabetes, and a history of PCI.
| Variable | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | p-value |
| Treatment Group | 0.72 (0.52-0.99) | 0.043 |
| Age | 1.03 (0.98-1.08) | 0.187 |
| Gender (Male) | 1.12 (0.78-1.60) | 0.554 |
| Duration of Diabetes | 0.98 (0.92-1.04) | 0.497 |
| Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (%) | 1.07 (0.98-1.17) | 0.125 |
| Previous PCI (Yes) | 1.22 (0.86-1.74) | 0.259 |
The analysis of secondary outcomes, specifically bleeding events, using chi-square testing revealed that in the group receiving Ticagrelor plus Aspirin, 8.0% experienced major bleeding events and 18.7% experienced minor bleeding events. In comparison, the group receiving Aspirin Alone had lower rates, with 4.0% experiencing major bleeding events and 13.3% experiencing minor bleeding events. However, the differences in bleeding event rates between the two groups were not statistically significant, as indicated by the p-values of 0.212 and 0.245 for major and minor bleeding events, respectively.
Outcome | Ticagrelor plus Aspirin (n=100) | Aspirin Alone (n=100) | p- value |
| Major Bleeding Events | 12 (12.0%) | 6 (6.0%) | 0.212 |
| Minor Bleeding Events | 28 (28.7%) | 20 (20.0%) | 0.245 |
The results of this study provide valuable insights into the use of Ticagrelor plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes, and a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The findings support the first hypothesis, indicating that combination
therapy significantly reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone. This is consistent with previous research highlighting the efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in this patient population.
However, the second hypothesis regarding the higher risk of bleeding events associated with dual antiplatelet therapy was supported by the findings. The study revealed a higher incidence of bleeding events, both major and minor, in the Ticagrelor plus aspirin group compared to the aspirin alone group. This highlights the importance of carefully weighing the potential benefits of reducing MACE against the increased risk of bleeding when deciding on the optimal antiplatelet therapy for these patients.
Interestingly, the third hypothesis proposed that Ticagrelor monotherapy, without aspirin, would result in a lower risk of bleeding events without increasing the risk of MACE compared to dual antiplatelet therapy with Ticagrelor and aspirin. However, the study did not specifically evaluate Ticagrelor monotherapy, so no direct comparison was made. Further research is needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of Ticagrelor monotherapy in this patient population.
Overall, these findings contribute to the existing knowledge on antiplatelet therapy in patients with stable CAD, diabetes, and a history of PCI. The combination of Ticagrelor plus aspirin shows promise in reducing the risk of MACE but is associated with a higher risk of bleeding events. Future studies should explore alternative treatment strategies, such as Ticagrelor monotherapy, to optimize the balance between efficacy and safety in this high- risk patient population.
This research study focused on patients with stable coronary artery disease, diabetes, and a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), evaluating the use of Ticagrelor plus aspirin compared to aspirin alone. The results demonstrated that the combination therapy significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone, validating its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. However, it also revealed a higher risk of bleeding events associated with dual antiplatelet therapy, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits. Although the study did not directly investigate Ticagrelor monotherapy, future research should explore this option to determine if it can provide a lower risk of bleeding events without compromising the efficacy in reducing MACE. These findings contribute to the current understanding of antiplatelet therapy in this specific patient population, highlighting the importance of personalized treatment decisions based on individual patient characteristics and preferences. Continued research efforts are necessary to optimize the balance between safety and effectiveness in managing stable CAD, diabetes, and a history of PCI, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes in this high-risk
All respect to the Holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ who is source and symbol of knowledge and guidance for the entire mankind and martyrs of Karbala who always guided me to stick with truth and sincerity. I will remember the people in every moment of my life that deserve acknowledgment. I am thankful to Dr. Rizwan UL HAQ, Department of Pharmacy, AUST for his invaluable efforts and guidance in conduction of this research.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,