Prasugrel for Japanese patients with ischemic heart disease in long-term clinical practice (PRASFIT-Practice II) - Final 2-year follow-up results of a postmarketing observational study

4Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: PRASFIT-Practice II is a postmarketing observational study conducted in 4,155 Japanese patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) who received long-term prasugrel. The data were used to assess the utility of Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria. Methods and Results: Patients in PRASFIT-practice II were clinically followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major/minor bleeding. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on ARC-HBR criteria (HBR (40.1% of patients) and non-HBR (59.9%)) and the effect of HBR on the primary endpoint was assessed. The median duration of dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel was 391.0 days. At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of MACE was 3.3%, and of TIMI major/minor bleeding was 2.7%. At 1 year, MACE and TIMI major/minor bleeding in the HBR group (4.0% and 3.4%, respectively) were higher than that in the non-HBR group (1.3% for both). Landmark analysis at 3 months and 1 year showed that the higher risk of MACE or TIMI major/minor bleeding in the HBR group persisted through 2 years. Conclusions: The results of this study confirmed the safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment with prasugrel, and demonstrated that the ARC-HBR criteria for bleeding risk are applicable in Japanese IHD patients treated with prasugrel.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nakamura, M., Kitazono, T., Kozuma, K., Sekine, T., Nakamura, S., Shiosakai, K., … Iizuka, T. (2020). Prasugrel for Japanese patients with ischemic heart disease in long-term clinical practice (PRASFIT-Practice II) - Final 2-year follow-up results of a postmarketing observational study. Circulation Journal, 84(11), 1981–1989. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0253

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free