Head‐to‐head comparison of prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Evidence from randomized head-to-head comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor is rare regarding clinical endpoints. Methods PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were queried with the terms “prasugrel,” “ticagrelor,” and “randomized.” Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the same terms were also surveyed using clinicaltrials.gov, escardio.org, pcronline.org, and tctmd.com. The clinical endpoints were death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and stent thrombosis (ST) for efficacy, and any bleeding for safety. Results A total number of 2068 patients in 12 RCTs, whose longest follow-up period was 6 months, was included in this study. The risks of death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-1.62, P = 0.647), MI (OR: 1.61, 95%CI: 0.71-3.62, P = 0.252), stroke (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 0.25-8.36, P = 0.680), and ST (OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.20-2.81, P = 0.677) were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, respectively. While the incidence of bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definitions was also comparable (OR: 0.83, 95%CI: 0.45-1.52, P = 0.539), that according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction criteria was lower in prasugrel than ticagrelor (OR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.24-0.97, P = 0.042). Conclusions Although the efficacy was similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor, prasugrel may be associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with ticagrelor during short- to mid-term follow-up period after PCI. Further studies are warranted in a larger patient population during longer-term follow up to validate these findings.