Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 396

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel Antiplatelet Effects in Patients with ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Alexopoulos, Dimitrios, Xanthopoulou, Ioanna, Gkizas, Vassilios, Kassimis, George, Theodoropoulos, Konstantinos C., Makris, George, Koutsogiannis, Nikolaos, Damelou, Anastasia, Tsigkas, Grigorios, Davlouros, Periklis, Hahalis, George·2012·Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract

Background—: Ticagrelor and prasugrel provide stronger platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel. Direct pharmacodynamic comparison between them has not yet been reported in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods and Results—: In a prospective, single-center, single-blind study, 55 out of 117 (47%) screened consecutive ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to either ticagrelor 180 mg loading followed by 90 mg bid, or prasugrel 60 mg loading followed by 10 mg od for 5 days. Platelet reactivity (PR) was assessed with the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay and the Multiplate Analyzer at 0, 1, 2, 6, 24 hours, and 5 days postrandomization. The primary end point, PR with VerifyNow at hour 1, did not differ significantly between patients randomized to ticagrelor versus prasugrel (257.3 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU], 95% CI 230.8–283.8 versus 231.3 PRU, 95% CI 205.3–257.4; P =0.2). PR did not differ at 2, 6, and 24 hours, although at day 5 it was lower with ticagrelor than prasugrel (25.6 PRU, 95% CI 12.3–38.9 versus 50.3 PRU, 95% CI 36.4–64.1; P =0.01). At hour 2, high on-treatment PR rates (cutoff 208 PRU) were 46.2% and 34.6% for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively, decreased significantly thereafter, whereas did not differ significantly between the 2 agents at all the time points of the study. Conclusions—: In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, both ticagrelor and prasugrel exhibit an initial delay in the onset of their antiplatelet action. Ticagrelor did not appear superior to prasugrel in reducing PR during the first 24 hours of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01463163.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circinterventions.112.972323

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 396

Metadata

Authors
Alexopoulos, D., Xanthopoulou, I., Gkizas, V., Kassimis, G., Theodoropoulos, K. C., Makris, G., Koutsogiannis, N., Damelou, A., Tsigkas, G., Davlouros, P., & Hahalis, G.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Published
2012-12
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
797-804
ISSN
  • 1941-7632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7640
OpenAlex
W2153447053
Cited by
396
References
30
FWCI
32.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel Antiplatelet Effects in Patients with ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circinterventions.112.972323
The paper
Alexopoulos, D., Xanthopoulou, I., Gkizas, V., Kassimis, G., Theodoropoulos, K. C., Makris, G., Koutsogiannis, N., Damelou, A., Tsigkas, G., Davlouros, P., & Hahalis, G. (2012). Randomized Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel Antiplatelet Effects in Patients with ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.112.972323

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.