Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Real-world performance of indobufen versus aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the ASPIRATION registry

BMC Medicine volume 22, Article number: 148 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Indobufen is widely used in patients with aspirin intolerance in East Asia. The OPTION trial launched by our cardiac center examined the performance of indobufen based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the vast majority of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and aspirin intolerance were excluded. We aimed to explore this question in a real-world population.

Methods

Patients enrolled in the ASPIRATION registry were grouped according to the DAPT strategy that they received after PCI. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adopted for confounder adjustment.

Results

A total of 7135 patients were reviewed. After one-year follow-up, the indobufen group was associated with the same risk of MACCE versus the aspirin group after PSM (6.5% vs. 6.5%, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 1.52, P = 0.978). However, BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced (3.0% vs. 11.9%, HR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.40, P < 0.001). These results were generally consistent across different subgroups including aspirin intolerance, except that indobufen appeared to increase the risk of MACCE in patients with ACS.

Conclusions

Indobufen shared the same risk of MACCE but a lower risk of bleeding after PCI versus aspirin from a real-world perspective. Due to the observational nature of the current analysis, future studies are still warranted to further evaluate the efficacy of indobufen based DAPT, especially in patients with ACS.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register (https://www.chictr.org.cn); Number: ChiCTR2300067274.

Peer Review reports

Condensed abstract

Indobufen is widely used in patients with aspirin intolerance in East Asia. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of indobufen-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a real-world population using the data from the ASPIRATION registry. A total of 7135 patients were reviewed. After one-year follow-up, indobufen shared the same risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but a lower risk of bleeding versus aspirin. These results were generally consistent across different subgroups including aspirin intolerance, except that indobufen appeared to increase the risk of MACCE in patients with ACS.

Background

Antiplatelet therapy is the key to the management of coronary heart disease. Of all the antiplatelet drugs, aspirin is considered the cornerstone. The current clinical guidelines recommend that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), which refers to aspirin plus P2Y12 receptor antagonist, should be prescribed for patients over a period of time after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which has been proven to reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) [1, 2]. However, it is observed that some patients cannot tolerate aspirin well [3], which seriously affects their quality of life and increases the risk of bleeding. It also impairs patients’ medication compliance, thereby increasing the subsequent incidence of ischemic events after PCI [4].

Currently, there exist some strategies to manage aspirin intolerance. In China, which owns one-fifth of the world’s population, the cardiologists tend to use indobufen, a novel cyclooxygenase inhibitor, to replace aspirin in patients with aspirin intolerance, which was already approved by the Chinese Food and Drug Administration. However, there are still few large-scale studies focused on the efficacy and safety of indobufen based DAPT. The OPTION study is so far the largest multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare the performance of indobufen versus aspirin in patients requiring DAPT, whose encouraging results have been published recently [5]. Nevertheless, this trial excluded the vast majority of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and aspirin intolerance. So the efficacy and safety of indobufen based DAPT in these patients remain unknown.

In the current study, we aimed to analyze the real-world performance of indobufen based DAPT after PCI through a large-scale registry launched by our cardiac center.

Methods

Data sources and study population

The current analysis was based on the data extracted from the Anti-thrombotic Strategies for Patients with aspIrin intoleRAnce after percuTaneous coronary InterventiON (ASPIRATION) registry, in which consecutive patients undergoing PCI were retrospectively enrolled from January 2020 to January 2021. The aim of this registry was to gather the real-world data on the management of aspirin intolerance after PCI in our cardiac center, which owns the largest volume of cardiac catheterization in eastern China. This registry and the current study were both approved by the local institutional review board. They were also in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the STROBE statement (see Additional file 1: STROBE Checklist).

All patients enrolled in the ASPIRATION registry were assessed for eligibility, and those receiving oral anticoagulation therapy or cilostazol based DAPT were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they died during hospitalization or refused to participate in the current analysis. The remaining patients were divided into the indobufen group (indobufen 100 mg twice a day plus P2Y12 receptor antagonist) or aspirin group (aspirin 100 mg once a day plus P2Y12 receptor antagonist) according to the type of DAPT that they were prescribed at discharge.

PCI procedure and perioperative antiplatelet therapy

The PCI procedures were performed according to the latest clinical guidelines. All patients were prescribed oral antiplatelet agents at a loading dose (generally 300 mg for aspirin, 100 to 200 mg for indobufen, 300 to 600 mg for clopidogrel, and 180 mg for ticagrelor) before the procedure. The specific techniques and strategies employed during PCI were all left to the interventional cardiologists. After PCI, generally, the cardiologists will adjust the type of DAPT according to the complaints and laboratory test results from the patients, since there are a significant number of patients who cannot tolerate aspirin well in China. Aspirin intolerance was defined as any conditions that prevent patients from long-term use of low-dose aspirin, such as having contraindications (e.g., peptic ulcer, gout) or severe adverse drug reactions (e.g., gastrointestinal symptoms, bleeding, allergic reactions) after taking it [3]. If this is the case, indobufen or cilostazol may be used as an alternative, depending on the patient’s preference and clinical situation. The duration of DAPT after PCI varies according to the risk of ischemia and bleeding, generally ranging from 6 to 12 months.

Follow-up and study endpoints

After discharge, patients were followed up until occurrence of a study endpoint of interest, or up to one year, whichever came first. The study endpoints were recorded through an electronic medical record system, or telephone interview when necessary. The follow-up was completed by five trained research assistants in our cardiac center. And an independent clinical events committee blinded to the group assignment adjudicated all clinical events.

The primary efficacy endpoint was MACCE, which referred to a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, clinically driven repeated revascularization, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and nonfatal ischemic stroke. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) defined type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding [6]. The secondary endpoints included: 1) a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and nonfatal ischemic stroke; 2) all-cause death; 3) the individual components of MACCE; 4) net adverse clinical events (NACE) defined as a composite of MACCE and BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding; 5) BARC defined bleeding; 6) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) defined bleeding [7]; 7) Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO) defined bleeding [8].

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range) according to the distributions examined by the quantile–quantile (Q-Q) plots. The Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney test was used to make comparisons, respectively. Categorical variables are expressed as numbers (percentage) and were compared through the Chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to analyze the time-to-event data, and the log-rank test was carried out to make comparisons. The difference between groups was also evaluated by the absolute standardized difference (ASD), which was more recommended in propensity score matching (PSM) [9]. An ASD > 10% was considered a meaningful difference.

The effect of different groups on endpoints was first evaluated by the univariate Cox proportional risk regression model, which yielded the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Additionally, PSM was used to adjust for the confounding factors [10] (see details in Additional file 1: Supplemental Methods), which produced the matched cohort. In the matched cohort, the HR and 95% CI was also calculated by the univariate Cox proportional risk regression model with a robust sandwich variance estimator to account for the matched design. The covariate balance achieved by PSM was assessed by calculating the ASD between groups and drawing the Love plot.

Several sensitivity analyses were done. First, other statistical approaches aiming to adjust for the confounding effect (i.e., traditional multivariate regression analysis, propensity score adjustment analysis, inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis) were performed (see details in Additional file 1: Supplemental Methods). Second, patients lost to follow-up were excluded. Third, patients with unplanned drug discontinuation were excluded. The unplanned drug discontinuation was defined as the discontinuation of indobufen or aspirin due to adverse drug reactions, cost reasons, poor compliance, or anticoagulation requirement, rather than converting to single antiplatelet therapy as approved by the cardiologists. The heterogeneity of exposure effect on primary endpoints was further examined in subgroup analysis.

There was no missingness for all variables listed in Table 1, except for body mass index. The missing data were imputed to the overall median value since the percentage of missingness was fairly low (< 0.1%).

Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics before and after propensity score matching
Full size table

The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) and R software version 4.0.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). A two-tailed p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Population and matching

As shown in Fig. 1, a total of 7268 patients undergoing PCI were assessed for eligibility, and 133 were excluded. Among the remaining 7135 patients, the mean age was 63.5 ± 10.5 years and 5561 (77.9%) were male. At discharge, 689 (9.7%) patients were prescribed indobufen based DAPT due to aspirin intolerance, and the use of indobufen increased gradually in our center (Additional file 1: Figure S1). Gastrointestinal intolerance, including gastrointestinal bleeding, digestive discomfort, or pre-existing digestive diseases (such as ulcers), was the major manifestations of aspirin intolerance (Additional file 1: Figure S2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow chart. Abbreviations: DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

Full size image

The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Before matching, there were significant differences between the two groups. Patients in the indobufen group tended to have risk factors for bleeding like advanced age, female gender, chronic kidney disease, and gastrointestinal disease. Lower levels of hemoglobin and higher rates of positive fecal occult blood test were also more common in the indobufen group. In terms of medications at discharge, patients in the indobufen group were more likely to be prescribed clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitor (PPI). The two groups were comparable on angiographic and procedural characteristics.

After 1:1 PSM, there were 662 patients in both groups, and all baseline characteristics were well-balanced (Table 1, Additional file 1: Figure S3). The distributions of propensity scores before and after matching are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S4.

Primary endpoints

During one-year follow-up, the two groups had similar risk of MACCE both in the raw (6.5% vs. 6.3%, unadjusted HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.42, P = 0.812) and propensity score matched (6.5% vs. 6.5%, adjusted HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.52, P = 0.978) cohort (Table 2). The cumulative incidence curves of MACCE are presented in Fig. 2. The above results were consistent across the prespecified subgroups except for diagnosis at admission (Fig. 3). The use of indobufen appeared to increase the risk of MACCE in patients with ACS.

Table 2 Primary and secondary endpoints
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Cumulative incidence of primary endpoints. The top two panels show the results of MACCE for both groups in the raw (A, log-rank P = 0.812) and propensity score matched cohort (B, log-rank P = 0.978), while the bottom two panels show the results of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in the raw (C, log-rank P < 0.001) and propensity score matched cohort (D, log-rank P < 0.001). Abbreviations: BARC = Bleeding Academic Research Consortium; CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio; MACCE = major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Subgroup analysis for MACCE. It shows the subgroup analysis for MACCE before (A) and after (B) propensity score matching. Abbreviations: ACS = acute coronary syndrome; CI = confidence interval; CKD = chronic kidney disease; HR = hazard ratio; LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MACCE = major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events; MI = myocardial infarction; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Full size image

As for safety endpoint, patients in the indobufen group were less likely to suffer from BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, both in the raw (3.0% vs. 6.5%, unadjusted HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72, P = 0.001) and propensity score matched (3.0% vs. 11.9%, adjusted HR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.40, P < 0.001) cohort (Table 2). The cumulative incidence curves of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding are presented in Fig. 2. The above results were consistent across the prespecified subgroups (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Subgroup analysis for BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. It shows the subgroup analysis for BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding before (A) and after (B) propensity score matching. Abbreviations: ACS = acute coronary syndrome; ARC-HBR = Academic Research Consortium-high bleeding risk; BARC = Bleeding Academic Research Consortium; CI = confidence interval; CKD = chronic kidney disease; FOBT = fecal occult blood test; HR = hazard ratio; PPI = proton pump inhibitor

Full size image

In addition, when other statistical approaches aiming to adjust for the confounding effect were performed, the above results were not affected (Additional file 1: Figure S5).

Secondary endpoints

As shown in Table 2, the two groups had similar risk of other efficacy endpoints, while indobufen based DAPT tended to prevent the patients from NACE and bleeding either defined by BARC, TIMI, or GUSTO.

Additional analyses

During one-year follow-up, there were 285 patients lost to follow-up, including 23 (3.3%) cases in the indobufen group and 262 (4.1%) cases in the aspirin group. The baseline characteristics were approximately comparable between patients who were lost and those who were not (Additional file 1: Table S1). Additionally, there were 214 patients who had unplanned drug discontinuation during follow-up, including 40 (5.8%) cases in the indobufen group and 174 (2.7%) cases in the aspirin group. The relatively high price seemed to be the major reason for indobufen discontinuation, while the adverse drug reactions still significantly affected the long-term use of aspirin (Additional file 1: Figure S6).

The additional sensitivity analyses further illustrated that the presence of loss to follow-up or unplanned drug discontinuation had limited impact on our major conclusions (Additional file 1: Figure S5).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study was the first real-world analysis based on a large-scale registry to evaluate the efficacy and safety of indobufen based DAPT after PCI. We observed that the indobufen group was associated with the same risk of MACCE versus the aspirin group, while the bleeding events were significantly reduced.

Prevalence and management strategies of aspirin intolerance

Currently, there is no widely accepted definition of aspirin intolerance [3]. However, it is frequently observed that a considerable proportion of patients cannot tolerate aspirin well. In a post-hoc analysis of the SYMPHONY and 2nd SYMPHONY study, 11.9% of patients experienced gastrointestinal discomfort after taking aspirin [11]. Our previous study also found that the proportion of patients with aspirin intolerance after PCI is as high as over 10% in China [3]. In the current analysis, 689 (9.7%) patients were prescribed indobufen after PCI due to aspirin intolerance.

Aspirin intolerance can lead to decreased medication adherence. It was estimated that 9% of post-ACS patients stopped taking aspirin due to intolerance during follow-up [11]. In the current study, despite strong intervention for aspirin intolerance during hospitalization, there were still 2.7% of patients in the aspirin group stopped taking aspirin after discharge, mainly due to adverse drug reactions. Poor medication compliance will increase the incidence of ischemic events in patients requiring vigorous antiplatelet therapy, especially those taking DAPT after PCI [4].

In this regard, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is recommended to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal intolerance in patients requiring DAPT [12]. However, worries are emerging since long-term PPI use might be associated with the occurrence of pneumonia, bone fractures, gastric mucosa atrophy [13], lower gastrointestinal bleeding [14], or even gastrointestinal cancer [15, 16], although it is still controversial. Anyway, it is determined that the addition of PPI is not appropriate for all clinical scenarios of aspirin intolerance, especially when bleeding outside the gastrointestinal tract, allergic reactions, or gout occurs. Aspirin desensitization is another known way to deal with aspirin intolerance [17]. However, this approach has certain risks and requires interdisciplinary cooperation. It is also not practical for the mast majority of patients with ACS who need to take aspirin immediately. Therefore, there is still an urgent need for an antiplatelet drug that can replace aspirin, especially when DAPT is required.

In the past, cilostazol was widely prescribed for patients with aspirin intolerance in East Asian countries [3]. However, the use of cilostazol in Chinese patients with coronary heart disease is decreasing due to the restriction of health insurance indications. In addition, there have been concerns that cilostazol may aggravate myocardial ischemia via increasing the heart rate. It is also contraindicated in patients with heart failure.

Indobufen and indobufen based DAPT

Indobufen, a phenylbutyrate derivative, is a relatively new generation of antiplatelet drugs, which can reversibly inhibit cyclooxygenase-1 and reduce the formation of thromboxane A2. It can also prevent the platelet aggregation induced by arachidonic acid or adenosine diphosphate, thus inhibiting the formation of thrombus [18]. Studies on healthy volunteers [19] and patients [20] showed that indobufen effectively inhibited thromboxane A2 formation, but had little effect on prostacycline, which was different from aspirin. These results theoretically indicated that indobufen had higher selectivity for platelet inhibition and better gastrointestinal tolerance, which was further confirmed by an endoscopic study [21]. In addition, unlike aspirin which irreversibly inhibits cyclooxygenase, the inhibitory effect of indobufen is transient and the platelet function can be recovered within 24 h after withdrawal [22], which significantly reduces the risk of bleeding.

At present, indobufen with a dose of 100 mg twice a day has been approved for patients with aspirin intolerance in China, and one bioequivalence study has shown that the antiplatelet effect of indobufen at this dose is comparable to that of aspirin with a dose of 100 mg once a day [23]. The clinical evidence behind such a move, however, is still scarce. Although previous studies observed that indobufen effectively prevented the ischemic events after coronary artery bypass grafting [24] and cerebral infarction [25], few studies focus on the performance of indobufen based DAPT on clinical events after PCI. The OPTION trial, initiated by our cardiac center, is considered the largest multicenter randomized controlled trial so far to compare the efficacy and safety of indobufen versus aspirin in patients requiring DAPT [5]. However, this trial only focused on patients with negative cardiac troponin, and those with aspirin intolerance were also excluded due to ethical considerations.

Therefore, the current study, based on a large-scale real-world registry, provided new clinical evidence of indobufen based DAPT from a more comprehensive perspective. We found that the indobufen group shared the same risk of MACCE with the aspirin group during one-year follow-up, which was consistent with the results from the OPTION trial [5]. A significant decrease in BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was also observed in the indobufen group. Notably, the bleeding incidence in the aspirin group (11.9%) was higher than that reported in the OPTION study (4.7%), which can be explained by the differences in the design of study and the characteristics of enrolled patients. The effect of PSM can also account for it.

The above results were generally consistent across the subgroups including aspirin intolerance. However, in patients with ACS, who were basically excluded in the OPTION trial, the use of indobufen tended to increase the risk of MACCE, although this association should be interpreted with caution owing to the nature of observational study and the limitation of subgroup analysis. Further studies are still warranted to investigate the efficacy of indobufen based DAPT in patients with ACS.

Clinical indications

This study was originally designed to make up for the limitations of the OPTION trial and to provide a strategy from China to deal with aspirin intolerance, which is still a head-scratching problem for cardiologists around the world. This is not to say that all patients with aspirin intolerance should be prescribed with indobufen. What is important is that we should identify aspirin intolerance and help these patients choose the optimal management strategies, which include the addition of PPI, alternative drugs like indobufen or cilostazol, aspirin desensitization, and de-escalation of antiplatelet therapy. This decision ultimately relies on the specific clinical scenarios, personal willingness, and affordability.

Limitations

Our study has some limitations. First, as an observational study, we were not able to adjust for other unmeasured confounders, although the PSM and regression analysis were adopted. Therefore, the main beneficiaries of this study are those intolerant to aspirin, rather than the entire PCI population. However, due to ethical concerns, we were not likely to design a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of indobufen vs. aspirin head-to-head in patients with aspirin intolerance. Second, patients with ACS who did not receive PCI were excluded from the analysis. So our results cannot apply to these patients. Third, the proportion of ACS (especially acute myocardial infarction) was not high in this study. Therefore, future studies are still required to focus more attention on this special population. Fourth, the current study was based on single-center data and the vast majority of the evidence on indobufen came from studies performed in Asia. So the generalizability of our results should be further evaluated in other cohorts.

Conclusions

In conclusion, indobufen based DAPT shared the same risk of MACCE but a lower risk of bleeding versus aspirin based DAPT from a real-world perspective. However, the efficacy of indobufen based DAPT, especially in patients with ACS, still need to be evaluated in future studies.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ACS:

Acute coronary syndrome

ASD:

Absolute standardized difference

CI:

Confidence interval

DAPT:

Dual antiplatelet therapy

HR:

Hazard ratio

LVEF:

Left ventricular ejection fraction

MACCE:

Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events

PCI:

Percutaneous coronary intervention

PSM:

Propensity score matching

TIMI:

Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction

References

  1. Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet. 2001;358:527–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1045–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dai C, Chen Z, Fu J, Qian J, Ge J. Cilostazol for Chinese patients with aspirin intolerance after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. Thromb Haemost. 2020;120:857–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Agostoni P, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the hazards of discontinuing or not adhering to aspirin among 50,279 patients at risk for coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2667–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu H, Xu L, Zhao X, et al. Indobufen or aspirin on top of clopidogrel after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation (OPTION): a randomized, open-label, end point-blinded noninferiority trial. Circulation. 2023;147:212–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011;123:2736–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rao AK, Pratt C, Berke A, et al. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Trial–phase I: hemorrhagic manifestations and changes in plasma fibrinogen and the fibrinolytic system in patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and streptokinase. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;11:1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Investigators G. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:673–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28:3083–107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Austin PC. An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Newby LK, Bhapkar MV, White HD, et al. Aspirin use post-acute coronary syndromes: intolerance, bleeding and discontinuation. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2003;16:119–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moayyedi P, Leontiadis GI. The risks of PPI therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;9:132–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lanas Á, Carrera-Lasfuentes P, Arguedas Y, et al. Risk of upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiplatelet agents, or anticoagulants. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13:906–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seo SI, Park CH, You SC, et al. Association between proton pump inhibitor use and gastric cancer: a population-based cohort study using two different types of nationwide databases in Korea. Gut. 2021;70:2066–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abrahami D, McDonald EG, Schnitzer ME, Barkun AN, Suissa S, Azoulay L. Proton pump inhibitors and risk of colorectal cancer. Gut. 2022;71:111–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rossini R, Iorio A, Pozzi R, et al. Aspirin desensitization in patients with coronary artery disease: results of the multicenter ADAPTED registry (aspirin desensitization in patients with coronary artery disease). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004368.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wiseman LR, Fitton A, Buckley MM. Indobufen. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in cerebral, peripheral and coronary vascular disease. Drugs. 1992;44:445–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zacharieva S, Orbetzova M, Tcharaktchiev D, Angelova-Gateva P, Andonova K. Effects of short-term treatment with the thromboxane synthesis blocker indobufen on pressor and depressor humoral factors in healthy humans. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol. 1995;17:615–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Caterina R, Giannessi D, Bernini W, et al. A prostacyclin-sparing effect of indobufen vs. aspirin. Thromb Haemost. 1996;75:510–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marzo A, Crestani S, Fumagalli I, Giusti A, Lowenthal DT. Endoscopic evaluation of the effects of indobufen and aspirin in healthy volunteers. Am J Ther. 2004;11:98–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee JY, Sung KC, Choi HI. Comparison of aspirin and indobufen in healthy volunteers. Platelets. 2016;27:105–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shi QP, Luo XY, Zhang B, et al. Effect of indobufen vs. aspirin on platelet accumulation in patients with stable coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label crossover study. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:950719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cataldo G, Heiman F, Lavezzari M, Marubini E. Indobufen compared with aspirin and dipyridamole on graft patency after coronary artery bypass surgery: results of a combined analysis. Coron Artery Dis. 1998;9:217–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Morocutti C, Amabile G, Fattapposta F, et al. Indobufen versus warfarin in the secondary prevention of major vascular events in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. SIFA (Studio Italiano Fibrillazione Atriale) Investigators. Stroke. 1997;28:1015–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the staff in the Department of Cardiology and cardiac catheterization room in Zhongshan Hospital for their contributions to this study. Chunfeng Dai is especially grateful to Jiayu Fu for her help in writing this paper.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Program on Key Basic Research Project of China (Grant No: 2019YFC0840601 and 2022YFC2407002), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No: T2288101, 82170338, 81970295, 81870267), Shanghai Clinical Research Center for Interventional Medicine (Grant No: 19MC1910300), Grant of Shanghai Shenkang on Key Clinical Research Project (Grant No: SHDC2020CR2015A and SHDC12019104), Grant of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (Grant No: 20JC1410800), Key Medical and Health Projects of Xiamen Province (No: 3502Z20204004) and Grant of Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Fudan University (Grant No: 2021ZSGG07 and zhupei2021-012).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chunfeng Dai, Muyin Liu, and Zheng Yang contributed equally to this article.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Chunfeng Dai, Muyin Liu, Zheng Yang, Youran Li, You Zhou, Danbo Lu, Yan Xia, Ao Chen, Chenguang Li, Hao Lu, Yuxiang Dai, Jianying Ma, Zhangwei Chen, Juying Qian & Junbo Ge

  2. National Clinical Research Center for Interventional Medicine, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Chunfeng Dai, Muyin Liu, Zheng Yang, Youran Li, You Zhou, Danbo Lu, Yan Xia, Ao Chen, Chenguang Li, Hao Lu, Yuxiang Dai, Jianying Ma, Zhangwei Chen, Juying Qian & Junbo Ge

  3. Shanghai Clinical Research Center for Interventional Medicine, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Chunfeng Dai, Muyin Liu, Zheng Yang, Youran Li, You Zhou, Danbo Lu, Yan Xia, Ao Chen, Chenguang Li, Hao Lu, Yuxiang Dai, Jianying Ma, Zhangwei Chen, Juying Qian & Junbo Ge

Authors
  1. Chunfeng Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muyin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zheng Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Youran Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. You Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Danbo Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ao Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Chenguang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hao Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yuxiang Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jianying Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Zhangwei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Juying Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Junbo Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CFD, MYL, ZY, ZWC, JYQ, and JBG designed the research. CFD, MYL, ZY, and YRL enrolled the patients and finished the follow-up work. YRL, YZ, DBL, and YX analyzed the data. AC, CGL, HL, YXD, and JYM interpreted the results. CFD drafted the manuscript. MYL, ZY, ZWC, JYQand JBG revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhangwei Chen, Juying Qian or Junbo Ge.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This registry and the current study were both approved by Zhongshan Hospital Ethics Committee (number: B2021-834).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplemental Methods. Table S1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics according to the status of follow-up. Figure S1. Temporal trend of indobufen use. Figure S2. Manifestations of aspirin intolerance. Figure S3. Comparison of ASD before and after matching. Figure S4. Distributions of propensity scores before and after matching. Figure S5. Sensitivity analysis. Figure S6. Reasons for unplanned drug discontinuation. STROBE Checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dai, C., Liu, M., Yang, Z. et al. Real-world performance of indobufen versus aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the ASPIRATION registry. BMC Med 22, 148 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03374-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03374-3

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us