LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Comparison of atrial fibrillation predictors in patients with acute coronary syndrome using ticagrelor or clopidogrel

Photo from wikipedia

Background/aim Ticagrelor is a drug widely used in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) that specifically increases the plasma level of adenosine, which is likely to cause atrial fibrillation (AF).… Click to show full abstract

Background/aim Ticagrelor is a drug widely used in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) that specifically increases the plasma level of adenosine, which is likely to cause atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, in this study we aimed to investigate the electrocardiographic and echocardiographic predictors of AF development after P2Y12 receptor antagonists in ACS patients. Materials and methods This cross-sectional study included 831 patients with ACS (486 [58.5%] with ST elevated myocardial infarction [STEMI] and 345 [41.5%] with non-ST elevated myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]). Patients were divided into ticagrelor (n = 410) and clopidogrel (n = 421) groups. P wave properties including P wave dispersion and atrial electromechanical conduction properties were measured as AF predictors with surface ECG and tissue Doppler imaging. Results Baseline characteristics such as age, sex, heart rate, blood pressure, and laboratory parameters were almost the same in the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in P wave dispersion (PWD) between ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (40.98 ± 12 ms versus 40.06 ± 12 ms, P = 0.304). Subgroups analysis according to ACS types also showed no significant difference in PWD (NSTEMI: 41.16 ± 13.8 ms versus 40.76 ± 13.55 ms, P = 0.799; STEMI: 40.9 ± 12.62 ms versus 39.19 ± 11.18 ms, P = 0.132). In addition, we did not find significant difference in atrial electromechanical delay (EMD) with tissue Doppler imaging (interatrial EMD 24.11 ± 3.06 ms versus 24.46 ± 3.23 ms, P = 0.279). Conclusion In conclusion, we did not find any difference in detailed electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters as AF predictors between ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups in patients with ACS.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation; clopidogrel; patients acute; ticagrelor clopidogrel; acute coronary

Journal Title: Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.