Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The evidence for use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the elective setting is relatively sparse and is based on data from more than two decades ago. We will review the evidence supporting the use of DAPT with focus on stable patients undergoing elective PCI, including the role of potent P₂Y₁₂ inhibitors, modified DAPT durations, and more recently, aspirin discontinuation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clopidogrel is the recommended P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor in the elective PCI setting. The benefit of more potent P₂Y₁₂ inhibitors such as ticagrelor or prasugrel in stable patients is unproven, but their use might be reasonable in those with high clinical or angiographic features of increased ischemic risk without increased risk of bleeding. Moreover, extending DAPT beyond 12 months is associated with a reduction in ischemic events but also increased bleeding. In contrast, shortening DAPT (3-6 months) reduces bleeding compared with 1 year of treatment, but it is also probably associated with increased ischemic events, mainly in higher-risk patients undergoing complex PCI. Recently, early aspirin discontinuation at 3 months (and perhaps as early as 1 month) following PCI reduces bleeding, with no evidence to suggest an increase in ischemic events. Clopidogrel is the P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor of choice, while more data are required to support the use of more potent P₂Y₁₂ inhibitors in stable patients. The duration of DAPT should be tailored to individual patient ischemic and bleeding risks. New strategies, such as early aspirin discontinuation, are promising to reduce bleeding risk without increase in ischemic risk.

Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: current status and future perspectives

Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been changing in parallel with the development of drug-eluting stents (DES) and antiplatelet agents. The recommendation of dual antiplatelet therapy duration is getting shorter due to the decreased risk of stent thrombosis in new-generation DES, the use of a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor as a monotherapy, and the increasing prevalence of high bleeding risk patients. Antithrombotic therapy after PCI has also changed due to the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants. Aspirin-free P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is now being evaluated in several prospective studies as a novel strategy of antiplatelet therapy after PCI. This review shows a current status and provides future perspectives for the antiplatelet therapy after PCI.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease: A review of recent advances

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a widely used procedure for the treatment of coronary artery disease to relieve narrowing or occlusion and improve blood supply. Although only balloon angioplasty was performed in the early period, coronary stents were developed later and coronary drug-eluting stents were introduced to decrease in-stent restenosis, which is related to the proliferation and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells.

AREAS COVERED

The drug-eluting stents are composed of a metallic or polymeric platform, specific drug, and polymers or coating for drug release. In this article, the recent advances in drug-eluting stent technologies for the treatment of coronary artery disease and adjunctive antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation will be reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

The need for further advances in drug-eluting stents or fully bioresorbable coronary scaffolds still exists to improve patient survival or clinical outcomes. The use for different actions or of combinations of drugs with several actions can be potential. Technological refinement and progress in manufacturing to improve mechanical integrity are needed, particularly for fully bioresorbable scaffolds. For antiplatelet therapy after stenting, clinical bleeding reduction strategies, such as a shortened duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy, are in progress.

Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.

Disparities by sex in P2Y12 inhibitor therapy duration, or differences in the balance of ischaemic-benefit and bleeding-risk clinical outcomes in older women versus comparable men following acute myocardial infarction? A P2Y12 inhibitor new user retrospective cohort analysis of US Medicare claims data

OBJECTIVES

To determine if comparable older women and men received different durations of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and if therapy duration differences were justified by differences in ischaemic benefits and/or bleeding risks.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

20% sample of 2007-2015 US Medicare fee-for-service administrative claims data.

PARTICIPANTS

≥66-year-old P2Y₁₂ inhibitor new users following 2008-2013 AMI hospitalisation (N=30 613). Older women compared to older men with similar predicted risks of study outcomes.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: P2Y₁₂ inhibitor duration (modelled as risk of therapy discontinuation).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

clinical events while on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy, including (1) death/hospice admission, (2) composite of ischaemic events (AMI/stroke/revascularisation) and (3) hospitalised bleeds. Cause-specific risks and relative risks (RRs) estimated using Aalen-Johansen cumulative incidence curves and bootstrapped 95% CIs.

RESULTS

10 486 women matched to 10 486 men with comparable predicted risks of all 4 study outcomes. No difference in treatment discontinuation was observed at 12 months (women 31.2% risk; men 30.9% risk; RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05), but women were more likely than men to discontinue therapy at 24 months (54.4% and 52.9% risk, respectively; RR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05). Among patients who did not discontinue P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy, women had lower 24-month risks of ischaemic outcomes than men (13.1% and 14.7%, respectively; RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), potentially lower 24-month risks of death/hospice admission (5.0% and 5.5%, respectively; RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.02), but women and men both had 2.5% 24-month bleeding risks (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Risks for death/hospice and ischaemic events were lower among women still taking a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor than comparable men, with no difference in bleeding risks. Shorter P2Y₁₂ inhibitor durations in older women than comparable men observed between 12 and 24 months post-AMI may reflect a disparity that is not justified by differences in clinical need.

Risk-Benefit of 1-Year DAPT After DES Implantation in Patients Stratified by Bleeding and Ischemic Risk

BACKGROUND

Although a 1-year duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in many patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the evidence supporting this duration is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT after DES using 2 novel scores to risk stratify bleeding and ischemic events.

METHODS

Ischemic and bleeding risk scores were generated from ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents), a multicenter, international, "all-comers" registry that enrolled 8,665 patients treated with DES. The risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT was then investigated across risk strata from an individual patient data pooled dataset of 7 randomized trials that enrolled 15,083 patients treated with DES.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, the ischemic score and the bleeding score had c-indexes of 0.76 and 0.66, respectively, and both were well calibrated. In the pooled dataset, no significant difference was apparent in any ischemic endpoint between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT, regardless of the risk strata. In the overall dataset, there was no significant difference in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT; however, among 2,508 patients at increased risk of bleeding, 1-year compared with ≤6-month DAPT was associated with greater bleeding (HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.12-7.13) without a reduced risk of ischemic events in any risk strata, including those with acute coronary syndromes. These results were consistent in a network meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present large-scale study, compared with ≤6-month DAPT, a 1-year duration of DAPT was not associated with reduced adverse ischemic events in any risk strata (including acute coronary syndromes) but was associated with greater bleeding in patients at increased risk of bleeding.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Stent Implantation, Still an Enigma: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation to prevent stent thrombosis and ischemic events. The ideal duration of DAPT in patients after DES implantation is a topic of debate among clinicians. In the past, many research studies were published related to an optimal duration of DAPT after DES implantation. In common practice, DAPT should be continued for one year or more after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by DES implantation. The duration of DAPT is significant as long-term DAPT has beneficial effects but is associated with side effects like bleeding. On the other hand, short-term DAPT has a lower risk of bleeding, but it increases the rate of stent thrombosis or ischemic events. Our aim in this systematic review is to solve the dispute regarding the duration of DAPT after DES implantation. So, we tried to find the efficacy and safety of short-term (six months) DAPT by compiling data from randomized control trials (RCTs).  We conducted this systematic review following the guidelines defined in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We searched for our data from multiple databases like PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. We reviewed 10964 studies and then applied inclusion/exclusion criteria and PRISMA guidelines. Finally, we were left with only 21 studies regarding the optimal duration of DAPT after DES implantation. Our systematic review will help determine the non-inferiority of short-term (six months) DAPT to long-term (12 months) DAPT. Furthermore, we also noticed with short-term (six months) DAPT, there was decreased incidence of bleeding as compared to DAPT for long-term. But more studies were required to establish the safety and effectiveness of short-term (six months) DAPT compared to long-term (12 months) DAPT in patients after DES implantation.

Choosing and changing the analysis scale in non-inferiority trials with a binary outcome

Background

The size of the margin strongly influences the required sample size in non-inferiority and equivalence trials. What is sometimes ignored, however, is that for trials with binary outcomes, the scale of the margin – risk difference, risk ratio or odds ratio – also has a large impact on power and thus on sample size requirement. When considering several scales at the design stage of a trial, these sample size consequences should be taken into account. Sometimes, changing the scale may be needed at a later stage of a trial, for example, when the event proportion in the control arm turns out different from expected. Also after completion of a trial, a switch to another scale is sometimes made, for example, when using a regression model in a secondary analysis or when combining study results in a meta-analysis that requires unifying scales. The exact consequences of such switches are currently unknown.

Methods and Results

This article first outlines sample size consequences for different choices of analysis scale at the design stage of a trial. We add a new result on sample size requirement comparing the risk difference scale with the risk ratio scale. Then, we study two different approaches to changing the analysis scale after the trial has commenced: (1) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the event proportion in the control arm that was anticipated at the design stage or (2) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the observed event proportion in the control arm. We use simulations to illustrate consequences on type I and type II error rates. Methods are illustrated on the INES trial, a non-inferiority trial that compared single birth rates in subfertile couples after different fertility treatments. Our results demonstrate large differences in required sample size when choosing between risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio scales at the design stage of non-inferiority trials. In some cases, the sample size requirement is twice as large on one scale compared with another. Changing the scale after commencing the trial using anticipated proportions mainly impacts type II error rate, whereas switching using observed proportions is not advised due to not maintaining type I error rate. Differences were more pronounced with larger margins.

Conclusions

Trialists should be aware that the analysis scale can have large impact on type I and type II error rates in non-inferiority trials.

Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - Past, Current and Future Perspectives

Optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been changed in parallel with the improvements of coronary stent and antiplatelet therapy. Over the past 25 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus P2Y₁₂inhibitor has been the standard of care used after coronary stent implantation. First-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) appeared to increase the risk of late stent thrombosis, and duration of DAPT was prolonged to 12 months. DAPT duration up to 12 months was the dominant strategy after DES implantation in the subsequent >10 years, although there was no dedicated randomized controlled trial supporting this recommendation. The current recommendation of DAPT duration is getting shorter due to the development of new-generation DES, use of a P2Y₁₂inhibitor as a monotherapy, and the increasing prevalence of high-bleeding risk patients. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy is now emerging as one of the novel strategies of antiplatelet therapy after PCI. This review gives an overview of the history of antiplatelet therapy and provides current and future perspectives on antiplatelet therapy after PCI.

Is There an Optimal Antiplatelet Strategy after Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease?

Gastrointestinal bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a not too uncommon clinical situation and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. After initial treatment, a number of clinical decisions must be made weighing the risks of ischemic events and future bleeding. In particular, healthcare providers must carefully balance the effectiveness of antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of coronary events, primarily future spontaneous myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis, against the risk of major, most commonly gastrointestinal bleeding. The first question is whether a dual antiplatelet therapy strategy is required or if a single antiplatelet agent will suffice. Then, if a single antiplatelet agent is adequate, which agent should be continued. Although there is some guidance to answer some of these questions, there are inadequate evidence-based data for others. Below, we review the various considerations and summarize our approach and rationale to manage patients who had gastrointestinal bleeding after PCI.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent throughout the world, with a significant impact on global health. There is a vast collection of data in the medical literature relating to the topic of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients considered to be at high cardiovascular (CV) risk. In order to perform a narrative review of literature regarding the use of DAPT in patients with high CV risk, PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase were searched for English-language articles from 1985 to December 2020 by using the medical subject heading terms and keywords 'antiplatelet therapy' and 'high-risk cardiovascular disease', alone or in combination. Both authors critically reviewed the design, population characteristics and results of the selected studies. The topic of DAPT in patients with high CV risk is fluid and constantly evolving. The landmark trials of CURE, TRITON-TIMI 38 and PLATO provided evidence for the optimal use of DAPT in patients after acute coronary syndrome, while the CHARISMA and MATCH trials provided guidance for clinicians for their use in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association focused update, published in 2016, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, published in 2017, were developed to provide guidance to clinicians based on the available data at the time to be able to choose the appropriate DAPT strategy that would provide patients with the maximum clinical benefit. The management of DAPT in patients with high CV risk is a challenging task, with new data on the subject constantly being reported. Balancing ischaemic benefit with potential bleeding complications adds to the complexity of managing DAPT in these patients. With all the available data and current clinical guidelines, patients deemed at high CV risk should be considered for DAPT, taking into account individual risk:benefit ratio. In most individuals with high CV risk, the net clinical benefit favours the use of DAPT.

Aspirin versus P2Y12 inhibitors with anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated with multiple antithrombotic therapies including antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies; however, this has the potential to increase bleeding risk. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin in patients also receiving anticoagulant therapy.

METHODS

We evaluated patients from the Atrial Fibrillation and Ischaemic Events with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease (AFIRE) trial who received rivaroxaban plus an antiplatelet agent; the choice of antiplatelet agent was left to the physician's discretion. The primary efficacy and safety end points, consistent with those of the AFIRE trial, were compared between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin groups. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring revascularisation or death from any cause. The primary safety end point was major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 1075 patients were included (P2Y₁₂ inhibitor group, n=297; aspirin group, n=778). Approximately 60% of patients were administered proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and there was no significant difference in PPI use in the groups. There were no significant differences in the primary end points between the groups (efficacy: HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.94; p=0.178; safety: HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47; p=0.456).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with AF and stable CAD taking rivaroxaban with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors or aspirin in the chronic phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000016612; NCT02642419.

Short-term vs long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is under controversial. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short-term (≤6 months) DAPT vs long-term (≥12 months) DAPT after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES).

METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared short-term (≤6 months) and long-term (≥12 months) DAPT. The endpoints included major bleeding, any bleeding, death from any cause, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularisation. The primary outcome was major bleeding. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each endpoint.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials involving 57,940 patients were included. Compared with long-term DAPT, short-term DAPT resulted in lower rates of major bleeding [RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87, P = .0002] and any bleeding [RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.69, P < .00001]. No significant difference was observed in the outcomes of death from any cause, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularisation. The subgroup analysis according to different DAPT durations, mono antiplatelet therapies (MAPTs), countries and P2Y12 inhibitors produced similar outcomes as comprehensive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with long-term DAPT, short-term DAPT did not increase the risk of ischemic complications but did reduce the risks of major bleeding and any bleeding by over 25%. This study showed that short-term DAPT could be considered for most patients after DES implantation.

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and stability of coronary heart disease: a 60 000-patient meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has important implications for clinical outcomes in coronary disease. However, the optimal DAPT duration remains uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched four major databases for randomised controlled trials comparing long-term (≥12 months) with short-term (≤6 months) or shorter (≤3 months) DAPT in patients with coronary syndromes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were any bleeding and major bleeding (safety), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, revascularisation and stroke (efficacy). Nineteen randomised controlled trials (n=60 111) satisfied inclusion criteria, 8 assessed ≤3 months DAPT. Compared with long-term (≥12 months), short-term DAPT (≤6 months) was associated with a trend towards reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01) and significant bleeding reduction (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.83 and RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77 for major and any bleeding, respectively). There were no significant differences in efficacy outcomes. These associations persisted in sensitivity analysis comparing shorter duration DAPT (≤3 months) to long-term DAPT (≥12 months) for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.05). In subgroup analysis, short-term DAPT was associated with lower risk of bleeding in patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.81 and RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.65, respectively), but higher risk of stent thrombosis in acute coronary syndrome (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.17 vs RR: 1.25, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.58).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that short (≤6 months) and shorter (≤3 months) durations DAPT are associated with lower risk of bleeding, equivalent efficacy and a trend towards lower all-cause mortality irrespective of coronary artery disease stability.

Understanding the Merits and Drawbacks of Noninferiority Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine

A noninferiority trial is designed to show that the new treatment is not unacceptably worse than the standard treatment by more than a predefined noninferiority margin. These trials are typically performed when standard placebo-controlled trials are considered to be unethical or impractical and the new treatment offers advantages over the existing standard treatment in terms of safety, convenience, or cost. Given that noninferiority trials are being performed with increasing frequency in cardiovascular applications, it is important to understand their complex trial design and analysis. This narrative review aims to provide readers with a detailed perspective on the goals, characteristics, design, and analysis of noninferiority trials. Trials designed to show noninferiority require an appropriate reference population, a proven standard treatment and dose, an appropriate margin of noninferiority that is statistically justifiable (based on historical placebo-controlled trials evaluating standard treatment effect) and clinically reasonable (choosing the fraction of the effect of the standard drug that should be "preserved" by the new drug), a high level of adherence to treatment, and adequate statistical power to reliably conclude that a treatment is truly noninferior and therefore effective. The merits and pitfalls of noninferiority trials, with representative contemporary cardiovascular clinical trials in interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, and atrial fibrillation management as exemplars, are described. The key issues that challenge the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and implementation of these trials are discussed, and a variety of ways to identify and mitigate key errors are recommended to allow for optimal evaluation of noninferiority trials conducted in cardiovascular medicine.

Short dual antiplatelet therapy followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIMS

After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES), whether short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor confers benefits compared with prolonged DAPT is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Ovid, and ScienceDirect, were searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT vs. 12 months of DAPT after PCI with second-generation DES implantation. The primary and co-primary outcomes of interest were major bleeding and stent thrombosis 1 year after randomization. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by fixed-effect and random-effects models. Multiple sensitivity analyses including random-effects models 95% CI adjustment were applied. A sensitivity analysis comparing trials using P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT with those using aspirin SAPT was performed. A total of five randomized clinical trials (32 145 patients) were available. Major bleeding was significantly lower in the patients assigned to short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT compared with those assigned to 12-month DAPT (random-effects model: HR 0.63, 95% 0.45-0.86). No significant differences between groups were observed in terms of stent thrombosis (random-effects model: HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86-1.65) and the secondary endpoints of all-cause death (random-effects model: HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.03), myocardial infarction (random-effects model: HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89-1.23), and stroke (random-effects model: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68-1.74). Sensitivity analyses showed overall consistent results. By comparing trials testing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT vs. 12 months of DAPT with trials testing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by aspirin SAPT vs. 12-month of DAPT, there was no treatment-by-subgroup interaction for each endpoint. By combining all these trials, regardless of the type of SAPT, short DAPT was associated with lower major bleeding (random-effects model: HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.83) and no differences in stent thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were observed between regimens.

CONCLUSION

After second-generation DES implantation, 1-3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT is associated with lower major bleeding and similar stent thrombosis, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with prolonged DAPT. Whether P2Y12 inhibitor SAPT is preferable to aspirin SAPT needs further investigation.

Efficacy and Safety of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

This network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different dual antiplatelet therapies (DAPTs) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing longer-term (>12 months) DAPT (L-DAPT), 12-month DAPT (DAPT 12Mo), 6-month DAPT (DAPT 6Mo), 3-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy (DAPT 3Mo + ASA), 3-month DAPT followed by a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy (DAPT 3Mo + P2Y12), or 1-month DAPT with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy (DAPT 1Mo + P2Y12) were searched. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), major bleeding, any bleeding, definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST), and net adverse clinical events (NACE). This Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed with the random-effects model.

Results

Twenty-four RCTs (n = 81339) were included. In comparison with L-DAPT, DAPT 6Mo (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29–0.83), DAPT 3Mo + P2Y12 (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18–0.82), DAPT 3Mo + ASA (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.17–0.98), and DAPT 1Mo + P2Y12 (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.14–0.93) were associated with a lower risk of major bleeding. DAPT 3Mo + P2Y12 (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.38–0.88) reduced the risk of any bleeding when compared with DAPT 12Mo. L-DAPT decreased the risk of MI and definite or probable stent ST when compared with DAPT 6Mo. DAPT 3Mo + P2Y12 decreased the risk of NACE in comparison with DAPT 6Mo and DAPT 12Mo. No significant difference in all-cause mortality and cardiac death was observed. In patients with acute coronary syndrome, DAPT 6Mo was comparable to DAPT 12Mo.

Conclusion

Short-term (1–3 months) DAPT is noninferior to DAPT 6Mo after DESs implantation, while L-DAPT reduces MI and definite or probable ST rates. DAPT 3Mo + P2Y12 might be a reasonable trade-off in patients with high risk of bleeding accompanied by ischemia.

Establishing the optimal duration of DAPT following PCI in high-risk TWILIGHT-like patients with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of extended-term (>12-month) versus short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ischemic and hemorrhagic events in high-risk "TWILIGHT-like" patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Recent emphasis on shorter DAPT regimen after PCI irrespective of indication for PCI may fail to account for the substantial residual risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events in ACS patients.

METHODS

All consecutive patients fulfilling the "TWILIGHT-like" criteria undergoing PCI were identified from the prospective Fuwai PCI Registry. High-risk patients (n = 8,358) were defined by at least one clinical and one angiographic feature based on TWILIGHT trial selection criteria. The primary ischemic endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 months, composed of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke while BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was key secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Of 4,875 high-risk ACS patients who remained event-free at 12 months after PCI, DAPT>12-month compared with shorter DAPT reduced the primary ischemic endpoint by 63% (1.5 vs. 3.8%; HRadj: 0.374, 95% CI: 0.256-0.548; HRmatched: 0.361, 95% CI: 0.221-0.590). The HR for cardiovascular death was 0.049 (0.007-0.362) and that for MI 0.45 (0.153-1.320) and definite/probable stent thrombosis 0.296 (0.080-1.095) in propensity-matched analyses. Rates of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (0.9 vs. 1.3%; HRadj: 0.668 [0.379-1.178]; HRmatched: 0.721 [0.369-1.410]) did not differ significantly between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI, long-term DAPT, compared with shorter DAPT, reduced ischemic events without a concomitant increase in clinically meaning bleeding events, suggesting that prolonged DAPT can be considered in ACS patients who present with a particularly higher risk for thrombotic complications without excessive risk of bleeding.

The validation of the dual antiplatelet therapy score in East Asians receiving percutaneous coronary intervention with exclusively second generation drug-eluting stents

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score (DS) predicts clinical outcome in an East-Asian population that received exclusively second generation drug-eluting stent (DES).

BACKGROUNDS

It is uncertain whether the DS could adequately risk stratify patients exclusively receiving second generation DES.

METHODS

From the Grand-DES registry, we evaluated patients who were treated with DAPT for at least 12 months and were event-free at 12 months after DES implantation. Patients were classified into two categories: high DS (≧2) (n = 3,157); and low DS (<2) (n = 5,226). The primary ischemic outcome was a composite of stent thrombosis and all myocardial infarction (MI), and the primary bleeding outcome was TIMI major or minor bleeding. A propensity score (PS)-matched analysis was done to correct for baseline differences between extended DAPT group and the conventional group.

RESULTS

Among 8,383 subjects, the primary ischemic outcome occurred in 48 patients (0.6%) and the primary bleeding outcome in 49 patients (0.6%). High DS was associated with a higher incidence of ischemic events (ischemic outcome: 0.8% vs. 0.4%, for high vs. low DS, Log-rank p = .039), but not with any differences in bleeding events (Log-rank p = .734). In the PS-matched analysis, extended group was associated with lower risk of composite endpoint of MI, stent thrombosis, or cardiac death in only the high DS group (1.8% vs. 3.7%, Log-rank p = .004; hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.76; p = .003 after adjustment).

CONCLUSIONS

The DS was an adequate risk stratifier for future ischemic events in East Asians receiving exclusively second generation DES.

Optimal duration and combination of antiplatelet therapies following percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The ideal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still unknown. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare very short-term (1-3 months), short-term (6 months), standard-term (12 months) and long-term (>12 months) DAPT durations for efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Overall DAPT comparisons were classified as "any shorter-term"/"any longer-term" DAPT. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and cardiovascular death). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies comprising 103.394 patients were included. Compared with standard-term DAPT duration, very short-term DAPT duration with subsequent drop of aspirin (RR 1.06, 95% CI, 0.95-1.18, p = 0.26) or drop of the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (RR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.72-1.16, p = 0.47) was not associated with a higher risk of MACE. Any longer-term compared with any shorter-term DAPT durations led to a significantly lower risk of MACE (RR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.81-0.96, p = 0.002), but a significantly higher risk of BARC 3-5 major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.22-2.17, p = 0.001). In the ACS subgroup receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor but not clopidogrel, any longer-term DAPT duration was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACE compared to any shorter-term DAPT duration (RR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.77-0.92, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

DAPT may be shortened to 1-3 months in patients with low ischemic but high bleeding risk followed by aspirin or P2Y₁₂ monotherapy. Prasugrel or ticagrelor based DAPT may be extended to >12 months in case of high ischemic and low bleeding risk.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO

CRD42020163719.

Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention

Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing , and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice.

Utility of the dual antiplatelet therapy score to guide antiplatelet therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score, one of the first prediction tools to attempt to uncouple bleeding and ischemic risk following percutaneous coronary intervention, can help guide antiplatelet duration after coronary intervention. Evaluating the generalizability of the score is important to understand its utility in clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that validated the DAPT score. A random effect meta-analysis was performed of ischemic and bleeding risk based on DAPT score. A secondary analysis assessed the risk of longer versus shorter P2Y12 inhibitor duration on ischemic and bleeding risk in randomized controlled trials of DAPT duration.

RESULTS

We identified 10 patient cohorts involving 88,563 patients. Compared with a low DAPT score, a high DAPT score was associated with increased ischemic risk (RR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.41-1.87) and reduced bleeding risk (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92). In three randomized trials of DAPT duration that contained information on the DAPT score, the relative risk of net adverse clinical events (combined ischemic and bleeding events) with longer duration of DAPT was 1.56 (95% CI: 0.77-3.19) for low DAPT score patients, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.61-1.21) for high DAPT score patients (pinteraction = .14).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large meta-analysis, the DAPT score consistently stratified bleeding and ischemic risk in opposing directions across several different study populations. More evaluation is needed to understand if the effect of longer DAPT duration on NACE is modified by the DAPT score in current practice.

Toward Brief Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and P2Y12 Inhibitors for Monotherapy After PCI

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention remains a controversial topic. The European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recommend at least 6 and 12 months of DAPT after PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome, respectively. Although prolonging DAPT duration reduces ischemic events, it is associated with higher rates of bleeding and possible fatal outcomes. The DAPT score can be an important tool to identify patients who may still benefit from prolonged therapy. Nevertheless, several recent randomized controlled trials showed that shortening DAPT duration from 12 to 1-3 months reduces bleeding rates without significantly increasing ischemic event rates. These trials also suggested replacing acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) with P2Y12 inhibitors after short-term DAPT. We review and compare past and present studies regarding DAPT and analyze the evidence favoring a short DAPT duration and the long-term single antiplatelet agent of choice.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has substantially reduced the risk of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis at the expense of major bleeding. We hypothesized that a short-term DAPT followed by extended P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy might be appropriate for patients with both high ischemic and bleeding risks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify randomized trials assessing the antiplatelet strategies after PCI. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding. The efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality/cardiovascular disease (CVD) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We identified 5 randomized trials comparing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy with standard DAPT (12 months) (16,057 versus 16,088). P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy following short-term DAPT (1 to 3 months) significantly reduced the risk of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding compared to standard DAPT (pooled HR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.46-0.86). The difference between P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT in reducing the composite CVD outcomes was not statistically significant (HR: 0.88, 95%CI: 0.77-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy might be an effective strategy for lowering severe bleeding complications and simultaneously preserving the ischemic benefit in patients receiving PCI.

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after myocardial infarction: Insights from a pooled database of the SMART-DATE and DAPT-STEMI trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is unclear, therefore, we aim to evaluate the ischemic and bleeding risk according to DAPT duration using a pooled-analysis of two randomized trials.

METHODS

MI patients treated with durable-polymer second-generation DES from two randomized trials, SMART-DATE and DAPT-STEMI, were pooled. The primary endpoint was a composite of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) defined by all-cause mortality, any MI, stroke and BARC 3-5 bleeding, between 6 and 18 months after index percutaneous coronary intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 2016 patients were analyzed, 1014 were treated with 6-month DAPT versus 1002 patients with ≥12-month DAPT duration. The primary endpoint occurred in 2.7% vs 2.5% (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.62-1.85, p = 0.80) of cases, in 6 vs ≥ 12-month DAPT, respectively. The composite of cardiac death, MI and stroke was similar (2% vs 1.6%, HR 1.24, 95%CI 0.65-2.4, p = 0.52). BARC 3-5 bleeding occurred more frequently in the ≥12-month DAPT (0.2% vs 0.9%, HR 0.22, 95%CI 0.05-1.02 p = 0.05, log rank p = 0.03). MI occurred more frequently in the 6-month DAPT (1.6% vs 0.6%, HR 2.66, 95%CI 1.04-6.79, p = 0.04). Stent thrombosis was similar in both arms (0.7% vs 0.5%, p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Six vs ≥ 12-month DAPT, followed by aspirin alone, resulted in comparable NACEs in patients with event-free MI at six months after durable-polymer DES implantation. However, single therapy with aspirin beyond the 6 months reduced bleeding rates but was associated with a higher rate of MI compared to ≥12-month DAPT.

Optimizing Monotherapy Selection, Aspirin Versus P2Y12 Inhibitors, Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces ischemic and thrombotic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Initial reports of higher myocardial infarction and mortality rates prompted guideline committees to choose 12-month duration of DAPT after PCI. However, higher bleeding rates with DAPT remain a major concern. Since these guidelines were published, there have been improvements in stent design, deployment techniques, and antiplatelet therapies, which have reduced ischemic events. To address bleeding concerns, trials were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of short-duration DAPT. Two main strategies were employed: (1) aspirin monotherapy after a short-duration DAPT, and (2) P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short-duration DAPT. In this review, we outline all the major trials on short-duration DAPT that have examined the previously mentioned strategies and propose a new individualized treatment algorithm for which monotherapy to choose or remove after PCI. In conclusion, while removing the P2Y12 inhibitor after a short DAPT appears to be safe in the low-risk population, removing aspirin and continuing the P2Y12 inhibitor as monotherapy would be the preferred strategy in intermediate- to high-risk patients to mitigate the bleeding risk.

Risk of heart failure following drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The association between implanted stent types and heart failure in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unknown. The current study aimed to investigate whether the implantation of a newer-generation drug-eluting stent (NG-DES) compared with that of a bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients with NSTEMI who receive an undefined duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF).

METHODS

In this nationwide, population-based retrospective cohort study, propensity score matching was used on the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to select 8,644 pairs of patients with NSTEMI and similar baseline characteristics receiving NG-DES or BMS implantation between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. A competing risk model was constructed to evaluate the risk of HHF in the NG-DES and BMS groups. Death was considered a competing risk.

RESULTS

Rates of cumulative incidence competing risk for HHF at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-year follow-ups were lower in the NG-DES group (4.11%, 5.63%, 6.72%, 7.65%, and 8.89%, respectively) than in the BMS group (5.89%, 7.81%, 9.25%, 10.8%, and 11.9%, respectively). After adjustment for all clinical variables, NG-DES implantation was associated with a lower risk of HHF than BMS implantation after 5 years, with an adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% CI = 0.64-0.79, p < 0.001). These results are in agreement with those of patients who received DAPT for >6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

NG-DESs may reduce HHF risk in patients with NSTEMI who receive an undefined duration of DAPT.

A systematic review of the studies that evaluate the performance of the DAPT score

BACKGROUND

The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) score was derived to determine which patients may benefit from prolonged DAPT therapy after 12 months based on the balance between ischaemic and bleeding events. Several studies have attempted to validate the score with inconsistent findings.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the studies that evaluated the DAPT score in PCI populations. A search was performed on MEDLINE and EMBASE and two independent reviewers reviewed the search results for study inclusion and extracted data from studies which met the inclusion criteria. Data are presented in tables and narrative synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included in this review. The study designs included post hoc analysis of randomised trials, prospective cohorts, retrospective cohorts and a case-control study. In the derivation/validation study, the c-statistic for ischaemic and bleeding outcomes were 0.64/0.70 and 0.68/0.64, respectively. Among the validation studies, the C-statistics for composite outcomes ranged from 0.53 to 0.71 for ischaemic outcomes and 0.49 to 0.71 for bleeding outcomes. Only one study randomised patients with high DAPT score to different combinations of antiplatelet after 1 year of DAPT and found that continuation of DAPT was associated with fewer deaths because of myocardial infarction, but more bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

While not designed for this purpose many studies have shown that the DAPT score has modest predictive value for ischaemic and bleeding outcomes. A prospective randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the clinical benefits of utilising the DAPT score in guiding continued DAPT therapy beyond 1 year.

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents: how short can we go?

Current guidelines recommend a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and oral P2Y<inf>12</inf> receptor inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) of 6 months for most patients with stable coronary disease and of 12 months for most patients with acute coronary syndromes. Large evidence from randomised clinical trials of shorter DAPT regimens after PCI with newer-generation DES is now emerging in heterogenous patient population not selected on the basis of high bleeding risk as well as in patients at high bleeding risk. The scope of this review is to provide an update on the benefits and harms of these short DAPT regimens and to discuss future directions in DAPT strategies after PCI with newer generation DES.

Trial Design Principles for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

Investigating the balance of risk for thrombotic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is especially relevant for patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). The Academic Research Consortium for HBR recently proposed a consensus definition in an effort to standardize the patient population included in HBR trials. The aim of this consensus-based document, the second initiative from the Academic Research Consortium for HBR, is to propose recommendations to guide the design of clinical trials of devices and drugs in HBR patients undergoing PCI. The authors discuss the designs of trials in HBR patients undergoing PCI and various aspects of trial design specific to HBR patients, including target populations, intervention and control groups, primary and secondary outcomes, and timing of endpoint reporting.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy versus aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy for percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

A number of trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, whether to continue aspirin or a P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor after a short course of DAPT is actively debated.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through March 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating short-term DAPT (≤6 months) when compared with longer-term (≥12 months) DAPT among patients undergoing PCI. The ischemic outcomes were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The safety outcome was major and/or clinically relevant bleeding. The primary objective was to investigate the outcomes with aspirin monotherapy (Aspirin group) versus P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12i group) after short-term DAPT.

RESULTS

Our search identified 17 eligible trials enrolling a total of 54,625 patients comparing different DAPT duration. Either of the 2 monotherapy groups did not increase the risk of ischemic outcomes when compared with the long-term DAPT group, without difference between the Aspirin versus the P2Y12i groups. However, both monotherapy groups significantly reduced bleeding when compared with long-term DAPT (Aspirin group: hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.62 [0.45-0.86], P=.004 and P2Y12i group: 0.68 [0.50-0.93], P=.015). There was no difference in bleeding between the Aspirin versus P2Y12i groups (hazard ratio=0.91 [0.58-1.43], P=.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing PCI, short-term DAPT with continuation of either aspirin or P2Y12i reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic outcomes when compared with long-term DAPT. The choice of antiplatelet therapy after short-term DAPT should be evaluated in well-powered trials.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Drug-Eluting Stents: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains uncertain. We compared short-term (<6-month) DAPT followed by aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy; midterm (6-month) DAPT; 12-month DAPT; and extended-term (>12-month) DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

METHODS

Twenty-four randomized, controlled trials were selected using Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, and online databases through September 2019. The coprimary end points were myocardial infarction and major bleeding, which constituted the net clinical benefit. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

In 79 073 patients, at a median follow-up of 18 months, extended-term DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction in comparison with 12-month DAPT (absolute risk difference, -3.8 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.87]), midterm DAPT (absolute risk difference, -4.6 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.61 [0.45-0.83]), and short-term DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -6.1 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.55 [0.37-0.83]), or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (absolute risk difference, -3.7 incident cases per 1000 person-years; relative risk, 0.69 [0.51-0.95]). Conversely, extended-term DAPT was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding than all other DAPT groups. In comparison with 12-month DAPT, no significant differences in the risks of ischemic end points or major bleeding were observed with midterm or short-term DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy, with the exception that short-term DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding. There were no significant differences with respect to mortality between the different DAPT strategies. In acute coronary syndrome, extended-term in comparison with 12-month DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of myocardial infarction without a significant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The present network meta-analysis suggests that, in comparison with 12-month DAPT, short-term DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents, whereas extended-term DAPT reduces myocardial infarction at the expense of more bleeding events.

Benefits of short-term or prolonged as compared to standard 1 year DAPT in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of 9 randomized trials

Optimal timepoint for the discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after an acute coronary syndrome is still debated. In fact, despite a shortening of DAPT duration should be advocated, based on the negligible risk of thrombotic complications observed with newer generations of drug-eluting stents (DES), in order to reduce the hemorrhagic risk, a more prolonged anti-ischemic protection would be suitable for certain higher-risk patients, rendering the traditional 12 months strategy outdated. We performed an updated meta-analysis and indirect comparison of randomized trials comparing shorter vs extended DAPT duration in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for studies comparing 3-6 (short-term) or prolonged (> 12 months) DAPT vs traditional 12 months in ACS patients treated with DES. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. We included three randomized clinical trials and six study sub-analysis comparing alternative (short-term or prolonged) DAPT vs 12 months in post-ACS, with a total of 15,738 patients. Mortality occurred in 1.8% of patients, with no difference according to DAPT duration (short-term vs standard DAPT: OR [95% CI] 1.00 [0.72-1.39], p = 0.99; > 12 vs 12 months: OR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.61-1.22], p = 0.41). No difference in the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis was observed between short-term and standard DAPT, while a significant reduction was achieved only when extending the duration beyond 12 months (MI: OR [95% CI] 0.49 [0.36-0.67], p < 0.00001; ST: OR [95% CI] 0.40 [0.23-0.70], p = 0.001). However, prolonged DAPT was associated with a significant increase in major bleedings (OR [95% CI] 1.69 [1.17-2.45], p = 0.006). In fact, indirect comparison confirmed a significant interaction between short-term vs prolonged DAPT and the risk of myocardial infarction (p < 0.001), stent thrombosis (p = 0.0006) and major bleeding complications (p = 0.02). Based on the current meta-analysis, among ACS patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions with DES, a shorter-term (3 or 6 months) DAPT can be safely considered, offering a non-inferior protection from major cardiovascular ischemic events as compared to the standard 12 months strategy. Extending DAPT therapy beyond 12 months enhances the antithrombotic protection, although paying the fee of increasing major bleeding complications, therefore resulting in a null effect on mortality.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study

INTRODUCTION

Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for medically managed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (MMACS) patients is still unknown. We explored the efficacy and safety of ≥ 12-month DAPT among MMACS patients.

METHODS

In this sub-analysis of the optimal antiplatelet therapy for Chinese Patients with Coronary Artery Disease study (NCT01735305), clinical outcomes among MMACS patients were compared between the < 12-month and ≥ 12-month DAPT groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints included the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2-5, BARC 3-5, and all bleeding events. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare baseline characteristics between the < 12-month and ≥ 12-month DAPT groups.

RESULTS

In this cohort of ACS patients (n = 10,016), MMACS patients (n = 2967) were less likely to use DAPT at 12 (31.64% vs. 67.47%, P < 0.0001) and 24 (13.82% vs. 18.71%, P < 0.0001) months and experienced more ischemic events at 12 (4.55% vs. 3.40%, P = 0.006) and 24 (6.88% vs. 5.08%, P = 0.0004) months than those treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 7049). Among MMACS patients, the rate of primary efficacy endpoint occurring within the second year was significantly higher in the < 12-month DAPT group than in the ≥ 12-month group both before (2.88% vs. 1.60%, P = 0.040) and after (3.19% vs. 1.71%, P = 0.045) PSM. After PSM, no significant differences in all bleeding, BARC 2-5, and BARC 3-5 bleeding were found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

MMACS patients with insufficient DAPT management experienced relatively more ischemic events. DAPT for at least 1 year may be beneficial to this special population without significantly increasing the bleeding risks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01735305.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

AIM

The objective of this article is to review the contemporary literature on the use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease after undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Special consideration was given to the type and duration of therapy, treatment strategies for the elderly (≥65 years of age), and strategies to reduce bleeding.

METHODS

Relevant studies were searched through MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. Of the 236 publications retrieved, 76 were considered relevant including 35 randomized controlled trials, 17 meta-analyses, 16 observational studies, and 8 published major guidelines.

RESULTS

Most trials, meta-analyses, and guidelines support 1 month of triple therapy (TT) with an oral anticoagulant (OAC), dual antiplatelet agents (DAPT) with aspirin (ASA)/clopidogrel, and, afterward, dual therapy (DT) with OAC and single antiplatelet agent for an additional 11 months, or alternatively DT alone for 12 months after PCI. Individual consideration is given to the risk and impact of stent thrombosis (ST), thromboembolism, and bleeding. Several trials and meta-analyses have also suggested that shorter DAPT duration (≤6 months) may be safer than longer therapy (≥6 months) when weighing the risk of bleeding with ischemic outcomes, especially with newer generation drug-eluting stents. The selective use of proton-pump inhibitors in patients prone to gastrointestinal bleeding who are subjected to prolonged exposure with TT or DT may be beneficial. In the elderly, the risk of bleeding from TT, compared with DT, outweighs the benefit of reducing ischemic events.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, tailoring therapy to the individual patient is recommended considering the ischemic and bleeding risk as well as the risk of thromboembolism. For most patients with AF, 1 month of TT and subsequently DT for additional 11 months are recommended.

Very short dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI and new DES: a meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Very early (1-3 months) discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been recently proposed in percutaneous coronary interventions with modern drug-eluting stents (DES), with contrasting results. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the prognostic impact of very short DAPT regimens vs the standard 12-month regimen in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with new DES.

METHODS

Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCT). The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding events. A prespecified analysis was conducted according to the long-term antiplatelet agent.

RESULTS

We included 5 RCTs, with a total of 30 621 patients; 49.97% were randomized to very short (1-3 months) DAPT, followed by aspirin or P2Y₁₂I monotherapy. Shorter DAPT duration significantly reduced the rate of major bleeding (2% vs 3.1%, OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.46-0.84; P=.002; Phet=.02), but did not significantly condition overall mortality (1.3% vs 2%, OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.73-1.29; P=.84; Phet=.18). The reduction in bleeding events was even more significant in trials randomizing event-free patients at the time of DAPT discontinuation. The occurrence of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis was similar between shorter vs standard 12-month DAPT.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, a very short (1-3 months) period is associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding compared with the standard 12-month therapy, with no increase in major ischemic events and comparable survival.

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Short Course of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following drug-eluting stent (DES) placement for ≥12 months in acute coronary syndrome or 6 months in stable coronary artery disease. However, with the advent of newer-generation stents, the optimal duration of DAPT to balance bleeding and thrombotic risks has been debated.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in short-duration group (SDG) vs. standard treatment group (STG) course of DAPT in patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for RCTs of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES placement who received short (≤ 3 months) vs. standard DAPT course (≥12 months) and were followed for ≥12-months. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke) were the primary outcome. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 20,706 patients (10,344 in the SDG and 10,362 in the STG) were analysed from four studies. There was no significant difference observed for MACE (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.08, P = .92, I² = 0%) myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis. However, lower rates of major bleeding were noted in the SDG (1.20 vs. 1.80%; OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-0.99; P = .04; I² = 71%) albeit with increased heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

A short duration of DAPT followed by P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy was comparable to 12 months of DAPT with respect to MACE and thrombotic events, with lower rates of major bleeding events in select group of patients undergoing PCI. More data is needed to assess efficacy in patients with complex lesions and high risk ACS population including those with STEMI presentation.

Clinical Usefulness of PRECISE-DAPT Score for Predicting Bleeding Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the SMART-DATE Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Although the current guidelines endorse the PRECISE-DAPT score (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) to inform clinical decisions regarding duration of DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the PRECISE-DAPT score to guide duration of DAPT has not been properly validated by randomized trials focused on the population with acute coronary syndrome. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the PRECISE-DAPT score for predicting future bleeding and ischemic events and to compare clinical outcomes of short-term and long-term DAPT duration according to the PRECISE-DAPT score in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

This was a substudy of the SMART-DATE trial (6- Versus 12-Month or Longer Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome), in which patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly assigned to either 6- (n=1357) or 12-month or longer DAPT (n=1355). Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5) and ischemic (myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) events at 18 months after the index procedure were compared between the 6- and 12-month or longer DAPT groups, according to PRECISE-DAPT score.

RESULTS

The PRECISE-DAPT score was moderately effective at predicting bleeding events (area under the curve, 0.754 [95% CI, 0.655-0.854]; P<0.001). In patients with nonhigh PRECISE-DAPT score (<25, n=1967 [72.5%]), 6-month DAPT was associated with higher ischemic risk (2.7% versus 1.3%; HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.03-3.91]; P=0.040; absolute risk difference, +1.3%; P=0.035) with similar bleeding risk (0.4% versus 0.3%; HR, 2.00 [95% CI, 0.37-10.94]; P=0.422; absolute risk difference, +0.2%; P=0.498), compared with 12-month or longer DAPT. Among patients with high PRECISE-DAPT score (≥25, n=745 [27.5%]), 6-month DAPT presented a similar ischemic risk (4.8% versus 3.4%; HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.68-2.98], P=0.348; absolute risk difference, +1.5%; P=0.327) but significantly reduced major bleeding risk (0.6% versus 2.3%; HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.05-1.17]; P=0.079; absolute risk difference, -1.7%; P=0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with current guidelines, determination of the duration of DAPT according to PRECISE-DAPT score could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention with current-generation drug-eluting stents. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01701453.

Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Type 1 Myocardial Infarction With a Focus on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

BACKGROUND

There are important knowledge gaps in type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI). Our primary objective was to compare the outcomes of patients with T2MI with those of patients with type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI). Our secondary objective was to determine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual antiplatelets (DAPTs) have explicitly included patients with T2MI.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of patients with T2MI with patients with T1MI and a separate systematic review to evaluate the inclusion of T2MI in RCTs evaluating DAPT. There were 19 cohorts enrolling 48,829 patients (40,604 with T1MI and 5361 with T2MI) and 51 RCTs enrolling 188,132 patients with acute coronary syndrome.

RESULTS

Patients with T2MI had approximately 2-fold increases in unadjusted odds of long-term mortality compared with patients with T1MI (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.96; P < 0.0001) and a 45% increase in adjusted odds of long-term mortality (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.69; P < 0.0001, respectively). There was no published evaluation of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of DAPT in patients with T2MI.

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2MI are at increased risk of adjusted all-cause long-term mortality compared with patients with T1MI. The role of DAPT remains unclear in T2MI.