↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
162 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor
Published in
JACC, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zuzana Motovska, Ota Hlinomaz, Petr Kala, Milan Hromadka, Jiri Knot, Ivo Varvarovsky, Jaroslav Dusek, Jiri Jarkovsky, Roman Miklik, Richard Rokyta, Frantisek Tousek, Petra Kramarikova, Michal Svoboda, Bohumil Majtan, Stanislav Simek, Marian Branny, Jan Mrozek, Pavel Cervinka, Jiri Ostransky, Petr Widimsky, PRAGUE-18 Study Group

Abstract

Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 study did not find any significant differences between two potent P2Y12 inhibitors. The one-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on (1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor, and (2) on the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel. A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary PCI were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at one year. Since patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel. The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients; HR, 1.167; 95% CI, 0.742-1.835; P=0.503. No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%, P=0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%, P=0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%, P=0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%, P=0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%, P=0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%, P=0.999), and TIMI major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%, P=0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (N=216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (N=265) for ticagrelor, P=0.003. Patients who were economically motivated to switched to clopidogrel had (compared to patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events, however they also had lower ischemic risk. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02808767.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 162 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Master 9 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 55 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 66 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2021.
All research outputs
#407,128
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#970
of 16,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,230
of 337,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#28
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.