Comparison between preoperative loading dose of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on myocardial perfusion in type ii diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall myocardial infarction

• Main Authors: Emad Effat Fakhry, Adel Mohammed El Etriby, Ahmed Elmahmoudy Nayel
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
• Series: International Journal of the Cardiovascular Academy
• Subjects: blush grade; clopidogrel; no-reflow; primary percutaneous coronary intervention; ticagrelor; thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow
• Online Access: http://www.ijcva.com/article.asp?issn=2405-8181;year=2021;volume=7;issue=2;spage=55;epage=59;aulast=Fakhry
• ISSN: 2405-8181; 2405-819X

Background: Diabetes mellitus is recognized as an independent risk factor for the development of Coronary No Reflow. Ticagrelor has a faster onset of action and a stronger antiplatelet effect as compared to clopidogrel. The aim of this study is to compare between ticagrelor and clopidogrel loading doses before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) and their different effect on myocardial perfusion and in-hospital Major Adverse Cardiac Events. Methods: The study included 170 patients with Type II diabetes, who presented with acute anterior wall STEMI who underwent primary PCI. They were randomized into two groups, the1st group 85 patients received clopidogrel loading dose (600 mg) and the 2nd group 85 patients received ticagrelor loading dose (180 mg). Postinterventional thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade and myocardial blush grade (MBG) were recorded as well as in-hospital outcomes. Results: In the clopidogrel group, 80% of the patients had TIMI III flow score, 15.3% had TIMI II flow score and 2.4% had TIMI I and TIMI 0 flow score. In the ticagrelor group, 95% of the patients had TIMI III flow score, 2.4% had TIMI II flow score and 1.2% had TIMI I and TIMI 0 flow score (P = 0.01). Regarding MBG, in the clopidogrel group, 64.7% of the patients had MBG III, 13% had MBG II flow score, 2.3% had MBG 1, and 20% had MBG 0. In the ticagrelor group, 93% of the patients had MBG III, 1.1% had MBG II flow score, 1.1% had MBG 1, and 4.8% had MBG 0 (P = 0.007). In the clopidogrel group there were 3.5% in-hospital mortality, while in ticagrelor 2.4% in-hospital mortality (2.4%) (P = 0.47). In the Clopidogrel group, in-hospital MACE was 5.8% versus 3.5% in the ticagrelor group (P = 0.65). In the Clopidogrel group, in-hospital bleeding was 3.5% versus 4.7% in the ticagrelor group (P = 0.7). Conclusion: Ticagrelor loading before primary PCI resulted in improved TIMI flow and MBG in Type II diabetic patients presenting with anterior wall myocardial infarction.