Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes

Ticagrelor monotherapy after short duration of dual antiplatelet therapy compared to continued dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimum duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains controversial. Ticagrelor monotherapy after short duration of DAPT (1-3 months) is a subject of research. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the ticagrelor monotherapy with continued DAPT after short duration of DAPT in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies comparing ticagrelor monotherapy to DAPT after PCI and reported the outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE); net adverse clinical events (NACE); myocardial infarction (MI); major bleeding; death from any cause; definite or probable stent thrombosis; and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Data were extracted from published reports and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). Heterogeneity was examined with I2 test.

RESULTS

Of 3,208 results, five studies with 21,407 patients were included of which 50% received ticagrelor monotherapy. Studies had reported follow up of 12 months. Major bleeding [hazard ratio 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.61; P  < 0.001], NACE (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P  = 0.005), and all-cause death (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98; P  = 0.04) were significantly less with ticagrelor monotherapy. Other outcomes were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy reduces major bleeding, NACE and all-cause death as compared to continued DAPT for 12 months. Major ischemic outcomes were similar. Ticagrelor monotherapy is the way forward after short duration of DAPT after PCI in ACS.

Application of the Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk criteria in patients treated with coronary bioresorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: Insights from the POEM trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have investigated a 1 to 6-month short dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with modern drug eluting-stents to reduce bleeding events.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate cardiovascular outcomes in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) according to the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria after PCI with the Synergy bioresorbable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES).

METHODS

We applied ARC-HBR criteria in the population of the prospective, single-arm, multicenter POEM (Performance of Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Everolimus-Eluting Synergy Stent in Patients at HBR Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Followed by 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) trial. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis at 12 months.

RESULTS

The original POEM cohort included 356 patients (80.4 %) fulfilling ARC-HBR criteria. Oral anticoagulant (OAC) usage and age ≥75 years were the most frequent major and minor ARC-HBR criteria, respectively. The ARC-HBR group was mainly represented by men (71.1 %), with 74.4 ± 9.3 years and a high burden of cardiovascular risk factors. DAPT was prescribed in 79.3 %, and single antiplatelet (SAPT) with OAC in 18.7 %. 12-month follow-up was completed in 96.2 %. The primary endpoint occurred in 5.2 % (95 % CI 3.29-8.10) of patients, whereas bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 occurred in 2.7 % (95 % CI, 1.39 %-5.05 %).

CONCLUSION

Previous results of the POEM trial showed positive outcomes regarding ischemic and bleeding events with an S-DAPT regimen after Synergy EES. These results are also confirmed in sub-group analysis when ARC-HBR criteria are applied.

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy following a brief DAPT vs. prolonged 12-month DAPT in ACS patients post-PCI: a meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

As per current guidelines, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be started on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for a period of 12 months.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of brief DAPT (up to 3 months) succeeded by ticagrelor monotherapy compared with a 12-month DAPT in ACS patients following PCI.

METHODS

We systematically searched Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed to find relevant randomized clinical trials. Examined outcomes included the incidence of major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (MACCE), bleeding events, and the composite incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE).

RESULTS

Our primary analysis included 21,927 ACS patients from six RCTs. Our pooled results indicate that following PCI in individuals with ACS, brief DAPT followed by ticagrelor did not increase the risk of MACCE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.07) but significantly reduced the risk of minor or major bleeding (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44-0.62) and NACE (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86) compared with a long-term DAPT within a follow-up of 12 months.

CONCLUSION

Brief DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy is superior to a 12-month DAPT in offering a net clinical advantage in ACS patients following PCI.

De-escalation of antithrombotic treatment after acute coronary syndrome, a new paradigm

After an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) it is imperative to balance the bleeding vs. the ischemic risk given the similar prognostic impact of the two events. Since the post-discharge bleeding risk is substantially stable over time whereas the ischemic risk accumulates in the first weeks to months, a strategy of de-escalation of antithrombotic treatment, consisting in the reduction of either the duration (i.e., early interruption of one antiplatelet agent) or the intensity (i.e., switching from the more potent P2Y12-inhibitors prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel) of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), has been proposed. Reducing the intensity of DAPT can be carried out as a default strategy (unguided approach) or based on the results of either platelet function tests or genetic tests (guided approach). Overall, all de-escalation strategies have shown to consistently decrease bleeding events with no apparent increase in ischemic events as compared to 12-month standard-of-care DAPT. Owing however to several limitations and weaknesses of the available evidence, de-escalation strategies are currently not recommended as a routine, but should rather be considered for selected ACS patients, such as those at increased risk of bleeding.

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitor for Antiaggregant Therapies: From Molecular Pathway to Clinical Application

Platelets play a significant role in hemostasis, forming plugs at sites of vascular injury to limit blood loss. However, if platelet activation is not controlled, it can lead to thrombotic events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke. To prevent this, antiplatelet agents are used in clinical settings to limit platelet activation in patients at risk of arterial thrombotic events. However, their use can be associated with a significant risk of bleeding. An enhanced comprehension of platelet signaling mechanisms should facilitate the identification of safer targets for antiplatelet therapy. Over the past decade, our comprehension of the breadth and intricacy of signaling pathways that orchestrate platelet activation has expanded exponentially. Several recent studies have provided further insight into the regulation of platelet signaling events and identified novel targets against which to develop novel antiplatelet agents. Antiplatelet drugs are essential in managing atherothrombotic vascular disease. The current antiplatelet therapy in clinical practice is limited in terms of safety and efficacy. Novel compounds have been developed in response to patient variability and resistance to aspirin and/or clopidogrel. Recent studies based on randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have definitively demonstrated the role of antiplatelet therapy in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Antiplatelet therapy is the recommended course of action for patients with established atherosclerosis. These studies compared monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention. However, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, it is still unclear whether the efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor. This paper focuses on the advanced-stage evaluation of several promising antiplatelet drugs.

Therapeutic strategies aiming at the reduction of the antiplatelet intensity should not overlook the ischemic risk in patients with coronary syndromes

De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is gaining traction as a strategy to reduce bleeding risks while ensuring ischemic outcomes. Undiscriminating de-escalation, notably in patients with high ischemic risk, might expose them to major adverse cardiac events. Platelet function and genetic tests are emerging tools to guide de-escalation, but both present specific drawbacks. Recent meta-analyses have aimed to consolidate the findings of individual trials to provide clearer insights. Yet, limitations remain for patients with concomitant high bleeding and ischemic risks. These high-risk patients are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, and, therefore, currently available guidelines lack evidence-based recommendations for this subset. While DAPT de-escalation strategies hold promise, the choice of approach, whether clinically or assay-guided, remains complex and should be individualized.

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

Importance

Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor.

Objective

To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction.

Study Selection

Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding.

Results

Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Results beyond 5-years of surgery or percutaneous approach in severe coronary disease. Reconstructed time-to-event meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is controversy about the optimal revascularization strategy in severe coronary artery disease (CAD), including left main disease and/or multivessel disease. Several meta-analyses have analyzed the results at 5-year follow-up but there are no results after the fifth year. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, comparing results after the fifth year, between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents in patients with severe CAD.

METHODS

We analyzed all clinical trials between January 2010 and January 2023. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The databases of the original articles were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves, simulating an individual-level meta-analysis. Comparisons were made at certain cutoff points (5 and 10 years). The 10-year restricted median survival time difference between CABG and PCI was calculated. The random effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method were applied.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 5180 patients. During the 10-year follow-up, PCI showed a higher overall incidence of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.32; P=.008)]. PCI showed an increased risk of all-cause mortality within 5 years (HR, 1.2; 95%CI, 1.06-1.53; P=.008), while no differences in the 5-10-year period were revealed (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.84-1.26; P=.76). Life expectancy of CABG patients was slightly higher than that of PCI patients (2.4 months more).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe CAD, including left main disease and/or multivessel disease, there was higher a incidence of all-cause mortality after PCI compared with CABG at 10 years of follow-up. Specifically, PCI has higher mortality during the first 5 years and comparable risk beyond 5 years.

Current Management of In-Stent Restenosis

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the primary cause of target lesion failure following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), resulting in 10-year incidences of target lesion revascularization at a rate of approximately 20%. The treatment of ISR is challenging due to its inherent propensity for recurrence and varying susceptibility to available strategies, influenced by a complex interplay between clinical and lesion-specific conditions. Given the multiple mechanisms contributing to the development of ISR, proper identification of the underlying substrate, especially by using intravascular imaging, becomes pivotal as it can indicate distinct therapeutic requirements. Among standalone treatments, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation have been the most effective. The main advantage of a DCB-based approach is the avoidance of an additional metallic layer, which may otherwise enhance neointimal hyperplasia, provide the substratum for developing neoatherosclerosis, and expose the patient to a persistently higher risk of coronary ischemic events. On the other hand, target vessel scaffolding by DES implantation confers relevant mechanical advantages over DCB angioplasty, generally resulting in larger luminal gain, while drug elution from the stent surface ensures the inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia. Nevertheless, repeat stenting with DES also implies an additional permanent metallic layer that may reiterate and promote the mechanisms leading to ISR. Against this background, the selection of either DCB or DES on a patient- and lesion-specific basis as well as the implementation of adjuvant treatments, including cutting/scoring balloons, intravascular lithotripsy, and rotational atherectomy, hold the potential to improve the effectiveness of ISR treatment over time. In this review, we comprehensively assessed the available evidence from randomized trials to define contemporary interventional treatment of ISR and provide insights for future directions.

Antiplatelet De-Escalation Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Dual antiplatelet therapy-the combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor-remains the standard antiplatelet regimen recommended to prevent ischemic complications immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention. Nonetheless, recent advances in stent technologies, percutaneous coronary intervention techniques, adjunctive pharmacotherapy for secondary prevention, and the rising awareness of the prognostic impact of bleeding, which are inevitably associated with dual antiplatelet therapy, led to the investigation of alternative antiplatelet regimens related to fewer bleeding and a preserved ischemic protection. Thrombotic complications occur mostly in the first months after percutaneous coronary intervention, while the risk of bleeding remains stable over time; this observation laid the foundation of the concept of antiplatelet de-escalation, consisting of a more intense antiplatelet regimen early after percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by a less potent antiplatelet therapy thereafter. According to new definitions proposed by the Academic Research Consortium, de-escalation can be achieved by discontinuation of 1 antiplatelet agent, switching from a potent P2Y12 inhibitor to clopidogrel, or by reducing the dose of antiplatelet agents. This review discusses the rationale and the evidence supporting antiplatelet de-escalation, provides practical guidance to use these new regimens, and gives insights into future developments in the field.

What is the current optimal antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation? Current evidence from Japan and the world

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a major valvular disease that can have a negative impact on patients' prognosis, and its prevalence is increasing due to an aging population worldwide. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a well-established therapy for symptomatic severe AS utilized across the entire surgical risk spectrum. Based on the recently published evidence of large, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the number of patients undergoing TAVI is increasing worldwide. Ischemic and bleeding events are common after TAVI and can have serious consequences both immediately after the procedure and in the long-term. Antiplatelet therapy has been traditionally recommended to prevent thromboembolic events after TAVI. The situation regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen following TAVI is rapidly changing because many game-changing RCTs have been published. This report provides an overview of the current status and remaining issues in the field of optimal antithrombotic therapy following TAVI, including its possible effect on leaflet thrombosis.

Impact of ethnicity on antiplatelet treatment regimens for bleeding reduction in acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and pre-specified subgroup meta-analysis

AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing bleeding reduction strategies using antiplatelet treatment regimens (BRATs) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have shown promising results, but the generalizability of these findings may be significantly influenced by the ethnicity of the patients enrolled, given that East Asian (EA) patients show different ischaemic-bleeding risk profile compared to non-EA patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

RCTs comparing a BRAT vs. standard 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were selected. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as defined in each trial and the primary safety endpoint was minor or major bleeding. Twenty-six RCTs testing seven different BRATs were included. The only strategy associated with a trade-off in MACE was 'upfront unguided de-escalation' in the subgroup of non-EAs (risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.24). All but aspirin monotherapy-based strategies (i.e. 'short and very short DAPT followed by aspirin') were associated with reduced bleeding compared with standard DAPT in both EA and non-EA patients. There were no significant differences between subgroups, but the lack of RCTs in some of the included strategies and the difference in the certainty of evidence between EA and non-EA patients revealed that the evidence in support of different BRATs in ACS undergoing PCI is influenced by ethnicity. Moreover, absolute risk reduction estimation revealed that some BRATs might be more effective than others in reducing bleeding according to ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

The majority of BRATs are associated with reduced bleeding without any trade-off in hard ischaemic endpoints regardless of ethnicity. However, the supporting evidence and relative safety profiles of different BRATs might be significantly affected by ethnicity, which should be taken into account in clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023416710).

Aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary interventions

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the standard antithrombotic treatment after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Several trials have challenged guideline-recommended DAPT after PCI by testing the relative clinical effect of an aspirin-free antiplatelet approach-consisting of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course (mostly 1-3 months) of DAPT-among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Overall, these studies have shown P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short DAPT to be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of bleeding without an increase in thrombotic or ischaemic events compared with continued DAPT. Moreover, the effects of the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy without prior DAPT or following a very short course of DAPT after PCI are being investigated in emerging studies, of which one has recently reported unfavourable efficacy results associated with the aspirin-free approach compared with conventional DAPT. Finally, P2Y12 inhibitor alone has been compared with aspirin alone as chronic therapy after DAPT discontinuation, thus challenging the historical role of aspirin as a standard of care for secondary prevention following PCI. A thorough understanding of study designs, populations, treatments, results, and limitations of trials testing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. DAPT or vs. aspirin is required to consider adopting this treatment in clinical practice. This review addresses the use of aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies among patients undergoing PCI without a concomitant indication for OAC, providing an overview of clinical evidence, guideline indications, practical implications, ongoing issues, and future perspectives.

[Management of acute coronary syndrome : ESC guidelines 2023]

The new guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) on the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 2023 encompass updates for both the guidelines pertaining to ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and acute coronary syndrome without ST segment elevation (NSTE-ACS). The previously separated guidelines from 2017 and 2020 were therefore revised and summarized. These guidelines address various topics, including diagnostics, acute management, antithrombotic treatment, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, invasive strategies, and long-term treatment. The notable updates compared to earlier guidelines address the recommendation regarding the timing of invasive diagnostics in NSTE-ACS (Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome), the procedure of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease and alternative regimens for antithrombotic treatment in patients with a high risk of bleeding.

Efficacy and safety of different dual antiplatelet strategies in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is key for preventing ischaemic events post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Various DAPT modifications like the shortened duration or P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12i) de-escalation are implemented to reduce bleeding risk. However, these strategies lack direct comparative studies. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of such DAPT strategies, including de-escalated and short DAPT, in patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included individual components of MACEs and net adverse clinical events (NACEs).

Results

A total of 17 RCTs comprising 53,156 patients (median age, 62.0 years, 24.8% female) were included. NMA suggested that de-escalation DAPT was associated with a significantly lower risk of MACEs (risk ratio [RR] = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.98), bleeding (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.49-0.82), and NACEs (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.60-0.79) compared with standard DAPT. Short DAPT followed by P2Y12i monotherapy exhibited a significantly decreased risk of major bleeding (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46-0.86) compared with standard DAPT.

Conclusions

De-escalation DAPT was the most effective strategy for preventing the risk of MACEs without increasing bleeding events, while short DAPT followed by P2Y12i monotherapy was the most effective strategy for reducing the risk of bleeding among patients undergoing PCI.

Optimising antithrombotic therapy after ACS and PCI

Dual antiplatelet therapy, combining aspirin with a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, is the standard treatment for acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The optimal type and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy depend on the patient's risk for ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. De-escalation strategies, such as switching to a less potent P2Y12 inhibitor, reducing the dose, or discontinuing one of the antiplatelet agents, may be suitable for high-risk bleeding patients with low risk of recurrent ischemic events, and platelet function testing and genetic testing can guide de-escalation. For patients at high ischemic risk, strategies include drug switching, dose escalation, or adding a new drug. Patients at high ischemic and hemorrhagic risk require individualized treatment decisions and trade-off considerations.

De-escalation or abbreviation of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention: a Consensus Statement from an international expert panel on coronary thrombosis

Conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention comprises aspirin with a potent P2Y purinoceptor 12 (P2Y12) inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor) for 12 months. Although this approach reduces ischaemic risk, patients are exposed to a substantial risk of bleeding. Strategies to reduce bleeding include de-escalation of DAPT intensity (downgrading from potent P2Y12 inhibitor at conventional doses to either clopidogrel or reduced-dose prasugrel) or abbreviation of DAPT duration. Either strategy requires assessment of the ischaemic and bleeding risks of each individual. De-escalation of DAPT intensity can reduce bleeding without increasing ischaemic events and can be guided by platelet function testing or genotyping. Abbreviation of DAPT duration after 1-6 months, followed by monotherapy with aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, reduces bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients at high bleeding risk, particularly those without high ischaemic risk. However, these two strategies have not yet been compared in a head-to-head clinical trial. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the evidence base for these treatment approaches, provide guidance on the assessment of ischaemic and bleeding risks, and provide consensus statements from an international panel of experts to help clinicians to optimize these DAPT approaches for individual patients to improve outcomes.

Antithrombotic treatment following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with high bleeding risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Review the clinical outcomes of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with HBR after PCI include those with advanced age (e.g. >75 years of age), a prior history of major bleeding, anemia, chronic kidney disease, and those with indications for long-term anticoagulation. Strategies that successfully decrease bleeding risk in this population include shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; of 1-3 months) followed by single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin or a P2Y 12 inhibitor, or de-escalating from a more potent P2Y 12 inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to less potent antiplatelet regimens (aspirin with clopidogrel or half-dose ticagrelor or half-dose prasugrel). Patients on DAPT, and a full dose anticoagulation for other indications, have a lower risk of major bleeding without an increase in 1-2-year adverse ischemic events, when rapidly switched from DAPT to a single antiplatelet therapy (within a week after PCI) with aspirin or clopidogrel. Longer term data on the benefits and risks of these strategies is lacking.

SUMMARY

In patients with HBR after PCI, shorter durations of DAPT (1-3 months) decrease the risk of major bleeding without increasing the risk of adverse ischemic events.

Short-Term DAPT and DAPT De-Escalation Strategies for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term (≤6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and DAPT de-escalation become attractive for patients with acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

A systemic search identified randomized controlled trials that included patients with acute coronary syndrome treated using (1) standard DAPT (12 months) with clopidogrel, prasugrel (standard/low dose), or ticagrelor; (2) extended DAPT (≥18 months); (3) short-term DAPT (≤6 months) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin; (4) 12-month DAPT with unguided de-escalation from potent P2Y12 inhibitors to low-dose potent P2Y12 inhibitor or clopidogrel at 1 month; and (5) guided selection DAPT with genotype or platelet function tests. The primary efficacy outcome (major adverse cardiovascular events) was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major or minor bleeding.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 32 randomized controlled trials with 103 497 patients. While there were no differences in efficacy between short, unguided de-escalation and guided selection strategies, unguided de-escalation was associated with reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with standard DAPT with clopidogrel or ticagrelor (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.67 [0.49-0.93] and 0.68 [0.50-0.93]). Both short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor and unguided de-escalation were associated with reduced risks in safety compared with other strategies, including guided selection (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.66 [0.47-0.93] and 0.48 [0.33-0.71]). Short DAPT followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with reduced risk of major bleeding and all-cause death compared with standard, extended DAPT (eg, versus DAPT with clopidogrel; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.64 [0.42-0.97] and 0.60 [0.44-0.82]). By rankogram, unguided de-escalation strategy was the safest and most effective strategy in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and major or minor bleeding while short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor was ranked the best for major bleeding and all-cause death.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute coronary syndrome, unguided de-escalation was associated with the lowest risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and major or minor bleeding outcomes, while short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding and all-cause death.

Cardiac Interventions in Patients With Active, Advanced Solid and Hematologic Malignancies: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Invasive cardiac interventions are recommended to treat ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, multivessel coronary disease, severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, and cardiomyopathy. These recommendations are based on randomized controlled trials that historically included few individuals with active, advanced malignancies. Advanced malignancies represent a significant competing risk for mortality, and there is limited evidence to inform the risks and benefits of invasive cardiac interventions in affected patients. We review the benefit conferred by invasive cardiac interventions; the periprocedural considerations; the contemporary survival expectations of patients across several types of active, advanced malignancy; and the literature on cardiovascular interventions in these populations. Our objective is to develop a rational framework to guide clinical recommendations on the use of invasive cardiac interventions in patients with active, advanced cancer.

Eligibility to Intensified Antithrombotic Regimens for Secondary Prevention in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and intensified antithrombotic regimens (prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT] or dual pathway inhibition [DPI]) are recommended for secondary prevention in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after initial DAPT. We aimed to characterize eligibility to such strategies and to explore to what extent guidelines are applied in clinical practice. Patients who underwent PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome who completed initial DAPT were analyzed from a prospective registry. Patients were categorized into SAPT, prolonged DAPT/DPI, or DPI groups as per guideline indication by using a risk stratification algorithm. Predictors of receiving intensified regimens and the divergency of practice from guidelines were investigated. Between October 2019 and September 2021, a total of 819 patients were included. Based on the guidelines, 83.7% of patients qualified for SAPT, 9.6% for any intensified regimen (i.e., prolonged DAPT or DPI), and 6.7% for DPI only. At multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive an intensified regimen if they had diabetes, dyslipidemia, peripheral artery disease, multivessel disease, or previous myocardial infarction. Conversely, they were less likely to receive an intensified regimen if they had atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, or previous stroke. Guidelines were not followed in 18.3% of cases. In particular, only 14.3% of candidates to intensified regimens were treated accordingly. In conclusion, although the majority of patients who underwent PCI after the initial period of DAPT were eligible for SAPT, 1 out of 6 had an indication to intensified regimens. However, such intensified regimens were underused among eligible patients.

Personalized Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Striking a Balance Between Bleeding and Thrombosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)-aspirin in conjunction with a P2Y12 inhibitor-is the cornerstone of managing patients with acute coronary syndromes post-revascularization, but the clinical response is highly variable, with potentially devastating consequences. Herein, we review the mechanisms underpinning said variability and explore emerging approaches to normalizing therapeutic benefit.

RECENT FINDINGS

The potent P2Y12 inhibitors, prasugrel and ticagrelor, exhibit minimal inter-individual variability, replacing clopidogrel in DAPT and achieving greater rates of therapeutic response. However, these benefits decline in later phases when bleeding risk begins to supersede that of ischemia. Guided de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition as well as shortening DAPT duration have emerged as strategies that retain antithrombotic efficacy while reducing bleeding risk. Aspirin is the other component of DAPT but is also used in isolation for secondary prevention of thrombotic disease. In contrast to the P2Y12 inhibitors, genetic influences on aspirin non-response appear to be outweighed by a triad of clinical factors: non-adherence, enteric aspirin use, and inappropriate dosing according to bodyweight and BMI. Multiple de-escalation strategies for DAPT have been shown to mitigate bleeding risk, but it remains unclear which approach is ideal, necessitating head-to-head investigations to determine which exhibits the most favorable cost-to-benefit ratio. However, there is likely a role for more than one approach in clinical practice, depending on patient risk profile. Our approach to aspirin use is also in need of reassessment: strategies to improve adherence, avoidance of enteric aspirin in cardiac patients, and dose adjustment according to bodyweight and/or BMI are all likely to improve rates of therapeutic response. Moreover, platelet function testing may have a role in identifying patients expected to benefit from primary prophylactic aspirin.

Gender differences in efficacy and safety of antiplatelet strategies for acute coronary syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) represents the cornerstone of secondary prevention in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite its undisputed efficacy in reducing thrombotic events, DAPT increases the risk of bleeding, which is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. Novel antiplatelet strategies (i.e. in terms of timing, selection of drugs and their combinations, and modulation strategies) have been tested in randomized trials, suggesting the utility of tailored approaches in selected populations (i.e. patients at high bleeding or ischemic risk). It remains uncertain whether the effect of these strategies is influenced by sex.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides an overview of available evidence surrounding sex differences in the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet strategies for ACS and analyzes the potential reasons behind these findings. Relevant content was searched for in PubMed.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant differences between women and men exist in terms of clinical presentation, pharmacotherapies, interventional management, and prognosis of ACS. However, these observations do not appear to be attributed to different pharmacodynamic effects of antiplatelet therapies between women and men. Unfortunately, a critical issue depends on women being often underrepresented in clinical trials, leading to a substantial lack of sex-specific evidence.

De-escalation strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a step towards precision medicine

INTRODUCTION

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is a cornerstone in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Current international guidelines recommend the use of 12 months of DAPT with newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) as first-line therapy in this setting. However, intense and prolonged DAPT regimens are associated with an increased risk of bleeding, with relevant prognostic implications. Recently, a strategy of de-escalation of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors has been proposed as an alternative to conventional DAPT to mitigate the risk of bleeding while preserving ischemic protection after ACS.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the available evidence on guided and unguided strategies for P2Y₁₂ inhibitor de-escalation in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

EXPERT OPINION

Among patients with ACS, guided and unguided de-escalation strategies are safe and effective for secondary cardiovascular prevention. Although the implementation of genetic and platelet function tests is of interest for treatment personalization, the routine use of guided de-escalation strategies seems impractical. In this context, unguided de-escalation approaches appear more attractive, convenient, and suitable for contemporary practice.

Comparison of De-escalation of DAPT Intensity or Duration in East Asian and Western Patients with ACS Undergoing PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Guideline-recommended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus prasugrel/ticagrelor) for 12 months in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients increases bleeding, with East Asians (EAs) exhibiting higher bleeding and lower ischemic risk, compared with non-East Asians (nEAs). We sought to compare DAPT "de-escalation" strategies in EA and nEA populations.

METHODS

 A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing reduction of DAPT intensity or duration in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, in EA and nEA, was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

 Twenty-three trials assessed reduction of DAPT intensity (n = 12) or duration (n = 11). Overall, reduced DAPT intensity attenuated major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.94, p = 0.009), without impacting net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE) or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). In nEA, this increased MACE (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.09-1.31, p < 0.0001) without impacting NACE or bleeding; while in EA, it reduced major bleeding (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.95, p = 0.02) without affecting NACE or MACE. Overall, abbreviation of DAPT duration reduced NACE (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.99, p = 0.03) due to major bleeding (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.99, p = 0.006), without impacting MACE. In nEA, this strategy did not impact NACE, MACE, or major bleeding; while in EA, it reduced major bleeding (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.4-0.91, p = 0.02) without impacting NACE or MACE.

CONCLUSION

 In EA, reduction of DAPT intensity or duration can minimize bleeding, without safety concerns. In nEA, reduction of DAPT intensity may incur an ischemic penalty, while DAPT abbreviation has no overall benefit.

De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: Time to change our strategy?

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the gold standard after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Because local and systemic ischemic complications can occur particularly in the early phase (i.e. 1-3 months) after ACS or PCI, the synergistic platelet inhibition of aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is of the utmost importance in this early phase. Moreover, the use of the more potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor have shown to further reduce the incidence of ischemic events compared to clopidogrel after an ACS. On the other hand, prolonged and potent antiplatelet therapy are inevitably associated with increased bleeding, which unlike thrombotic risk, tends to be stable over time and may outweigh the benefit of reducing ischemic events in these patients. The duration and composition of antiplatelet therapy remains a topic of debate in cardiology due to competing ischemic and bleeding risks, with guidelines and recommendations considerably evolving in the past years. An emerging strategy, called "de-escalation", consisting in the administration of a less intense antithrombotic therapy after a short course of standard DAPT, has shown to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in ischemic events. De-escalation may be achieved with different antithrombotic strategies and can be either unguided or guided by platelet function or genetic testing. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence and provide practical recommendations on the use of different de-escalation strategies in patients with ACS and CCS.

Antiplatelet Strategies for Older Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes: Finding Directions in a Low-Evidence Field

Patients ≥ 75 years of age account for about one third of hospitalizations for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Since the latest European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that older ACS patients use the same diagnostic and interventional strategies used by the younger ones, most elderly patients are currently treated invasively. Therefore, an appropriate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is indicated as part of the secondary prevention strategy to be implemented in such patients. The choice of the composition and duration of DAPT should be tailored on an individual basis, after careful assessment of the thrombotic and bleeding risk of each patient. Advanced age is a main risk factor for bleeding. Recent data show that in patients of high bleeding risk short DAPT (1 to 3 months) is associated with decreased bleeding complications and similar thrombotic events, as compared to standard 12-month DAPT. Clopidogrel seems the preferable P2Y12 inhibitor, due to a better safety profile than ticagrelor. When the bleeding risk is associated with a high thrombotic risk (a circumstance present in about two thirds of older ACS patients) it is important to tailor the treatment by taking into account the fact that the thrombotic risk is high during the first months after the index event and then wanes gradually over time, whereas the bleeding risk remains constant. Under these circumstances, a de-escalation strategy seems reasonable, starting with DAPT that includes aspirin and low-dose prasugrel (a more potent and reliable P2Y12 inhibitor than clopidogrel) then switching after 2-3 months to DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for up to 12 months.

Advances in the available pharmacotherapy for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

INTRODUCTION

Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), including non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina, represent a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with important socio-economic consequences. NSTEMI accounts for the majority of acute coronary syndromes and usually develops on the background of a nonocclusive thrombus. We searched for relevant literature in the field in PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov as of July 2022.

AREAS COVERED

A number of pharmacotherapies are currently available for treatment and secondary prevention, mainly including antithrombotic, lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory drugs. Pretreatment with aspirin, anticoagulant and statin therapy is of key importance in the preprocedural phase, while pretreating with an oral P2Y12 inhibitor is not routinely indicated in patients undergoing early invasive management. For patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization, pharmacotherapy essentially consists of antithrombotic drugs, which should be carefully selected. Finally, antithrombotic, lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory drugs are important components of long-term secondary prevention after a NSTE-ACS.

EXPERT OPINION

This article reviews the evidence supporting recommendation on pharmacotherapy in patients presenting with a NSTE-ACS. Several randomized clinical trials are still ongoing and are expected to further inform scientific knowledge and clinical practice, with the final aim to improve the treatment of NSTE-ACS patients.

Thirty-Days versus Longer Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Treatment after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions with Newer Drug-Eluting Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abbreviation of the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (one or three months) has been recently proposed, especially for high bleeding risk patients, after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). Three databases were screened for eligible randomized control trials. The primary endpoint was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary endpoints consisted of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent-thrombosis, repeat revascularization and major bleeding. We included four RCTs with a total of 26,576 patients; 13,282 patients were grouped in 30-days DAPT, while the remaining 13,294 were allocated in a longer period of DAPT. One month of DAPT did not significantly reduce NACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87, 95% confidence intervals [Cl]: 0.74-1.03); however, major bleedings were significantly reduced by 22% (OR: 0.78, 95% Cl: 0.65-0.94). Mortality or ischemic events (stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularization and stent thrombosis) were not affected. Thus, 30-days DAPT could be considered as safe and feasible after PCI with DES in selected patients, especially those with high bleeding risk. Forthcoming RCTs could shed light on the optimal duration of DAPT.

Antithrombotic Management in AF Patients Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A European Perspective

AF is a highly prevalent disease, often requiring long-term oral anticoagulation to prevent stroke or systemic embolism. Coronary artery disease, which is common among AF patients, is often referred for myocardial revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which requires dual antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of stent-related complications. The overlap of AF and PCI is a clinical conundrum, especially in the early post-procedural period, when both long-term oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy are theoretically indicated as a triple antithrombotic therapy. However, stacking drugs is not a desirable option because of the increased bleeding risk. Several strategies have been investigated to mitigate this concern, including shortening triple antithrombotic therapy duration and switching to a dual antithrombotic regimen. This review analyses the mechanisms underlying thrombotic complications in AF-PCI, summarises evidence surrounding antithrombotic therapy regimens and reports and comments on the latest European guidelines.

Tailoring oral antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes: from guidelines to clinical practice

The assessment of bleeding and ischemic risk is a crucial step in establishing appropriate composition and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Evidence from recent randomized clinical trials led to some paradigm shifts in current guidelines recommendations. Options alternative to the standard 12-month DAPT duration include shorter periods of DAPT followed by single antiplatelet treatment with either aspirin or P2Y12 monotherapy, guided or unguided de-escalation DAPT, prolonged DAPT beyond the 12-month treatment period. Although DAPT composition and duration should be selected for each ACS patient on an individual basis weighing clinical and procedural variables, data from latest trials and meta-analyses may permit suggesting the most appropriate DAPT strategy according to the ischemic and bleeding risk assessed using validated tools and scores.

Treatment strategies of acute myocardial infarction: updates on revascularization, pharmacological therapy, and beyond

Owing to recent advances in early reperfusion strategies, pharmacological therapy, standardized care, and the identification of vulnerable patient subsets, the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction has improved. However, there is still considerable room for improvement. This review article summarizes the latest evidence concerning clinical diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Abatement of potent P2Y12 antagonist-based dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) including prasugrel or ticagrelor is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with coronary intervention (PCI). Acknowledging the importance of bleeding, multiple trials tested abatement schemes including uniform or guided de-escalation from the potent P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-De) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12-Mo) with heterogeneous results. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the impact of DAPT abatement strategies in patients with PCI.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized clinical studies evaluating clinical outcomes of patients after PCI. The rate of adverse events was evaluated using a frequentist network metanalysis. The random-effects model was used to combine risk estimates across trials and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) served as summary statistics. The primary endpoints of interest were the rate of major cardiac adverse events (MACE, defined as the composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke) and bleeding.

Results

Ten studies were identified randomizing 42511 patients. 6359 switched to the P2Y12-De and 13062 switched to the P2Y12-Mo. The risk of MACE, reflected a 24% reduction in the P2Y12-De and a 14% in the P2Y12-Mo in comparison with the DAPT strategy using potent P2Y12 inhibitors (RR: 0.76 [0.62, 0.94], and RR: 0.86 [0.75, 0.99], p < 0.05 both). A 35% risk reduction of major bleeding was seen with monotherapy (RR: 0.65 [0.46, 0.91],) contrasting the de-escalation trials where this effect was not significant (RR: 0.84 [0.57, 1.22]). All bleeding and minor bleeding events were reduced with both strategies. Indirect P2Y12-Mo versus P2Y12-De comparisons exhibited them as similar alternatives without significant differences.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that both P2Y12-De and P2Y12-Mo reduce ischemic events and bleeding among PCI-treated ACS patients. Ischemic benefit was more expressed with P2Y12-De, however, reduction of major bleeding was only significant with P2Y12-Mo strategy.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258502, identifier CRD42021258502.

No Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insight From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry

BACKGROUND

Several trials demonstrated that aspirin monotherapy compared with aspirin plus clopidogrel is associated with a lower incidence of bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); however, there remains a paucity of data to prove the necessity of even aspirin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and valve performance of the 3 different antithrombotic strategies post-TAVR from the OCEAN-TAVI (Optimized transCathEter vAlvular iNtervention) registry.

METHODS

Patients who received anticoagulation or had procedural complications were excluded. The remaining patients were classified into 3 groups according to the antithrombotic regimen at discharge: 1) nonantithrombotic therapy (None); 2) single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT); and 3) dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The primary outcome was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threatening or major bleeding).

RESULTS

Overall, 3,575 TAVR patients were included (None, 293; SAPT, 1,354; DAPT, 1,928). The median follow-up period was 841 days (IQR: 597-1,340 days). The incidence of NACEs did not differ between the groups (None vs SAPT: adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.18; P = 0.45; None vs DAPT: aHR: 1.09; P = 0.67). There was a lower incidence of all bleeding in patients with no antithrombotics (None vs SAPT: aHR: 0.63; P = 0.12; None vs DAPT: aHR: 0.51; P = 0.04). The valve performance was similar among the groups. Leaflet thrombosis was detected in 8.5% of the nonantithrombotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with SAPT/DAPT, the nonantithrombotic strategy was not associated with an increased risk of NACEs and potentially reduced the risk of bleeding events. The nonantithrombotic strategy may be an acceptable alternative to SAPT/DAPT in selected patients with TAVR.

Timing, Selection, Modulation, and Duration of P2Y12 Inhibitors for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing PCI

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and the oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor clopidogrel as the cornerstone of treatment for patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was firstly established in 2001. Soon thereafter, the newer-generation P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor became commercially available. The clinical management of ACS patients undergoing PCI has evolved significantly in the last 2 decades, with a shift toward more rapid invasive management, broader use of drug-eluting stents, and the increasing recognition that major bleeding due to antiplatelet therapy is detrimental. In this ever-changing scenario, numerous studies have addressed 4 main questions regarding P2Y₁₂ inhibition in ACS patients undergoing PCI: timing, selection, modulation, and duration. This paper reviews the latest evidence surrounding these topical questions, with a focus on efficacy and safety data, practice guidelines, and residual areas of uncertainty.

Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic stenosis is a major valvular disease, which affects prognosis, and its prevalence is increasing due to an aging population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established therapy for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis across the entire risk spectrum, and the number of patients who undergo TAVR is increasing worldwide. Generally, ischemic and bleeding events after TAVR are not rare and can be devastating. Thus, antithrombotic therapy is recommended to prevent thromboembolic events after TAVR. Recently, a lot of randomized control trials have been published on antithrombotic therapy following TAVR, and the situation regarding the optimal antithrombotic regiment following TAVR is dramatically changing. This report reviews the current status and remaining issues in the field of optimal antithrombotic therapy following TAVR and leaflet thrombosis.