Abstract:What is known and ObjectiveAlthough ticagrelor has been well‐known to improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and its effectiveness and safety have not been well evaluated in Chinese patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor in Chinese patients. In order to find potential effect modifiers on the drug effects, a decision tree method was performed to detect interactions between treatment and patient characteristics in an automatic and systematic manner. MethodsThis retrospective study included acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who underwent PCI and received either ticagrelor (N = 250) or clopidogrel (N = 291) while hospitalized between August 2014 and August 2015. After propensity score matching, Kaplan‐Meier analysis was used to study the event‐free survival against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, primary efficacy outcome, defined as the composite of cardiac death, non‐fatal myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, restenosis and target vessel revascularization [TVR]), re‐hospitalization, the need for urgent re‐PCI (secondary efficacy outcome) and bleeding events (safety outcome) within 12 months of the PCI date. To search for effect modifiers of the two antiplatelet therapies, a machine‐learning decision tree algorithm was conducted to predict re‐hospitalization status. ResultsAfter propensity score matching (N = 442), ticagrelor and clopidogrel had no significant difference in MACE, re‐hospitalization and bleeding. The decision tree analysis showed that the number of diseased vessels modulated the effect of ticagrelor and clopidogrel on re‐hospitalization rates. In single‐vessel disease (SVD) patients, ticagrelor was associated with lower hazards than clopidogrel for all efficacy outcomes: MACE (HR = 0.190, 95% CI: 0.042–0.866), re‐hospitalization (HR = 0.296, 95% CI: 0.108–0.808), urgent re‐PCI (HR = 0.249, 95% CI: 0.069–0.895), bleeding (HR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.063–16.129). However, in multi‐vessel disease (MVD) patients, the two treatments did not show significant difference. What is New and ConclusionIn the general patient population, there was no significant difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel on the hazard of MACE. However, ticagrelor achieved a better effectiveness than clopidogrel in patients with SVD. This pilot study provides scientific basis to call for a large‐scale prospective study in this population.

Efficacy of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Clinical effect of ticagrelor administered in acute coronary syndrome patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in East Asian Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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

Impact of Baseline Bleeding Risk on Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Chinese Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Comparison Of The Efficacy And Safety Of Ticagrelor And Clopidogrel In Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome After Risk Stratification

Ticagrelor Vs Clopidogrel when Coadministered with Bivalirudin in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Efficacy assessment of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by data mining and machine‐learning decision tree approaches

Ticagrelor versus Adjusted‐Dose Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Predictors and Long-Term Outcomes of In-Hospital Switching from Clopidogrel to Ticagrelor among Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Abstract 15223: Comparison of Net Clinical Benefit Between Clopidogrel-based and Ticagrelor-based Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China

Comparison of Net Clinical Benefit Between Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients in China With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Impact of Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Risk Stratification With the CHA2DS2-VASc Score

In-hospital Outcomes of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in High Bleeding Risk Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Findings from the CCC-ACS Project

Effect and Safety of Ticagrelor on Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Observation of Ticagrelor Efficacy in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Efficacy of Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor under NT-proBNP in Hospitalized ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: CCC-ACS Project Analysis

Efficacy and Safety Profile of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Net Clinical Benefit of Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Elderly Patients Carrying CYP2C19 Loss-of-function Variants with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Safety and efficacy of low-dose ticagrelor in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention