Duration of Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention In Patients at High Bleeding Risk: a MASTER DAPT trial sub-analysis

Atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease: (un)solved therapeutic dilemma?

Concomitant presence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention is a frequent occurrence. The choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, in this context, is still challenging. To offer the best protection both in terms of stroke and stent thrombosis, triple therapy with oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy would be required. Several drug combinations have been tested in recent years, including direct oral anticoagulants, with the aim of balancing ischemic and bleeding risk. Both pharmacokinetic aspects of the molecules and patient's characteristics should be analyzed in choosing oral anticoagulation. Then, as suggested by guidelines, triple therapy should start with a seven-day duration and the aim to prolong to thirty days in high thrombotic risk patients. Dual therapy should follow to reach twelve months after coronary intervention. Even not fully discussed by the guidelines, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk it should also be considered: 1) integrated assessment of coronary artery disease and procedural complexity of coronary intervention; 2) appropriateness to maintain the anticoagulant drug dosage indicated in technical data sheet; the lack of data on the suspension of antiplatelet drugs one year after percutaneous intervention; 3) the possibility of combination therapy with ticagrelor; and 4) the need to treat the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation during acute coronary syndrome. With data provided clinician should pursue a therapy as personalized as possible, both in terms of drug choice and treatment duration, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk.

Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction and High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) have a poor prognosis, and it is not known if they may benefit from complete revascularization after myocardial infarction (MI).

Objective

To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5.

Results

Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points.

Conclusions and Relevance

HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.

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.

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.

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.

Short duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following complex percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

The optimal composition and duration of antiplatelet therapy after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare 1-3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by monotherapy vs. 12 months of DAPT.

METHOD

MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for studies comparing 1-3 months of DAPT followed by monotherapy vs. 12 months of DAPT in the outcomes of complex PCI from inception through January 2023. Outcomes of interest included major bleeding, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and stroke.

RESULTS

Compared to 12 months, 1-3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy had a weak association with less major bleeding (OR 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.44-1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 28 %). There were no significant differences between the shorter and longer antiplatelet therapy in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.59-1.16; p = 0.21; I2 = 17 %), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.42; p = 0.50; I2 = 0), MI (OR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.69-1.35; p = 0.82; I2 = 32 %), stent thrombosis (OR 1.17, 95 % CI, 0.77-1.76; p = 0.38; I2 = 0 %), target vessel revascularization (OR 1.05, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.89; p = 0.82; I2 = 64 %), or stroke (OR 1.10, 95 % CI, 0.55-2.17; p = 0.37; I2 = 7 %);.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing complex PCI, DAPT for 1-3 months may be associated with less major bleeding but similar rates of cardiovascular events (death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and revascularization) compared to DAPT for 12 months.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: similarities and differences between a European expert consensus document and the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients.

Managing Patients With Concurrent High Risk for Bleeding and Thromboembolic Events

The number of patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) and high thromboembolic risk (HTR) is increasing. Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIH), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and pulmonary embolism (PE) are representative conditions due to HBR/HTR. Although these disorders are located at opposite ends of the same disease spectrum, this does not mean a patient with HBR cannot have a concomitant HTR. The clinical manifestation of these two risks mostly results in critically ill patients for whom management means a huge challenge. We have numerous well-structured guidelines about treating GIH, ACS, or PE, but the literature and recommendations about the concomitant onset of these diseases are limited. Expert recommendations suggest an integrative, comprehensive assessment of patient and intervention-related factors to decide on the antithrombotic regimen with the best clinical benefit by assessing thrombotic and bleeding risks. In general, if thrombotic factors predominate, a longer duration, more aggressive antithrombotic regimen should be planned, and if bleeding susceptibility is higher, a shorter duration, de-escalated regimen should be pursued. In this study, we aimed to explore the clinical dilemmas involved by presenting two cases with delicate management.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology 2023 Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Use of Antiplatelet Therapy

Antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the foundation of treatment and prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Selecting the optimal APT strategies to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, while balancing bleeding risk, requires ongoing review of clinical trials. Appended, the focused update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology guidelines for the use of APT provides recommendations on the following topics: (1) use of acetylsalicylic acid in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; (2) dual APT (DAPT) duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk; (3) potent DAPT (P2Y12 inhibitor) choice in patients who present with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and possible DAPT de-escalation strategies after PCI; (4) choice and duration of DAPT in ACS patients who are medically treated without revascularization; (5) pretreatment with DAPT (P2Y12 inhibitor) before elective or nonelective coronary angiography; (6) perioperative and longer-term APT management in patients who require coronary artery bypass grafting surgery; and (7) use of APT in patients with atrial fibrillation who require oral anticoagulation after PCI or medically managed ACS. These recommendations are all on the basis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted as part of the development of these guidelines, provided in the Supplementary Material.

Efficacy and Safety of Thirty-Day Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The optimal duration of DAPT after complex PCI remains under investigation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the safety and efficacy of a one-month therapy period versus a longer duration of DAPT after complex PCI. We systematically screened three major databases, searching for randomized controlled trials or sub-analyses of them, which compared shortened DAPT (S-DAPT), namely, one month, and longer DAPT (L-DAPT), namely, more than three months. The primary endpoint was any Net Adverse Clinical Event (NACE), and the secondary was any MACE (Major Adverse Cardiac Event), its components (mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis), and major bleeding events. Three studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 6275 patients. Shortening DAPT to 30 days after complex PCI did not increase the risk of NACEs (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.52-1.14), MACEs, mortality, myocardial infractions, stroke, or stent thrombosis. Pooled major bleeding incidence was reduced, but this finding was not statistically significant. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that one-month DAPT did not differ compared to a longer duration of DAPT after complex PCI in terms of safety and efficacy endpoints. Further studies are still required to confirm these findings.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the TALOS-AMI HBR substudy

BACKGROUND

The benefits of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may differ by high bleeding risk (HBR) status.

AIMS

We investigated the efficacy and safety of de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel after PCI by HBR status.

METHODS

This is a non-prespecified post hoc analysis of the TicAgrelor Versus CLOpidogrel in Stabilized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (TALOS-AMI) trial. Net adverse clinical events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] bleeding type 2, 3, or 5) at 1 year post-PCI were compared between the de-escalation (clopidogrel plus aspirin) and the active control (ticagrelor plus aspirin) groups by HBR status, as defined by the modification of the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 2,625 patients in the TALOS-AMI trial were analysed. Of these, 589 (22.4%) met the modified ARC-HBR criteria. The de-escalation group had lower primary endpoint rates than the control group in both HBR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.84) and non-HBR (HR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.84) patients. There were no differences in treatment effect for the primary endpoint regardless of HBR status (p for interaction=0.904). BARC bleeding type 3 or 5 was less common in the de-escalation than the control group among HBR patients only (HR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.07-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In stabilised acute myocardial infarction patients, unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of net adverse clinical outcomes irrespective of HBR status. The effect of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition on reducing haemorrhagic events was greater in patients with HBR.

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.

Design and Rationale of the BIOFLOW-DAPT Trial: a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety of the Orsiro Mission Stent Compared to the Resolute Onyx Stent in Subjects at High Risk for Bleeding in Combination with 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with implantation of the Orsiro Mission stent remains unclear. The BIOFLOW-DAPT (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04137510) trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled study designed to assess the safety of the Orsiro Mission versus the Resolute Onyx stent in HBR patients. Patients are treated with DAPT (aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor) for 1 month, followed by a single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT). The primary endpoint is the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 1 year. With a final sample size of 1948 HBR patients, this study is powered to assess the noninferiority of the Orsiro Mission stent with respect to the primary study endpoint. The BIOFLOW-DAPT is the first randomized clinical trial investigating 1-month DAPT duration in HBR patients after implantation of the Orsiro Mission stent.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04137510 Study design and key features. Patient selection starts before the index PCI, when consented patients will be randomized to the Orsiro Mission or the Resolute Onyx stent with mandated 1-month DAPT. At 1 month, eligibility is reassessed and if met, patients will discontinue DAPT and continue with P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin monotherapy. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; DES, drug-eluting stent; HBR, high bleeding risk; P2Y12i, P2Y12 inhibitor; ST, stent thrombosis.

Current concepts and novel targets for antiplatelet therapy

Platelets have a crucial role in haemostasis and atherothrombosis. Pharmacological control of platelet hyper-reactivity has become a cornerstone in the prevention of thrombo-ischaemic complications in atherosclerotic diseases. Current antiplatelet therapies substantially improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, but at the cost of increased risk of bleeding. Beyond their role in thrombosis, platelets are known to regulate inflammatory (thrombo-inflammatory) and microcirculatory pathways. Therefore, controlling platelet hyper-reactivity might have implications for both tissue inflammation (myocardial ischaemia) and vascular inflammation (vulnerable plaque formation) to prevent atherosclerosis. In this Review, we summarize the pathophysiological role of platelets in acute myocardial ischaemia, vascular inflammation and atherosclerotic progression. Furthermore, we highlight current clinical concepts of antiplatelet therapy that have contributed to improving patient care and have facilitated more individualized therapy. Finally, we discuss novel therapeutic targets and compounds for antiplatelet therapy that are currently in preclinical development, some of which have a more favourable safety profile than currently approved drugs with regard to bleeding risk. These novel antiplatelet targets might offer new strategies to treat cardiovascular disease.

Short dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention in high bleeding risk patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and stent thrombosis. However, DAPT duration is a concern in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients. We evaluated the effect of short DAPT (1-3 months) compared to standard DAPT (6-12 months) on bleeding and ischemic events in HBR PCI.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL up to August 18, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short DAPT (1-3 months) versus standard DAPT in HBR PCI were included. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, and certainty of evidence using GRADE criteria. Outcomes included MACE, all-cause death, stent thrombosis, major bleeding, and the composite of major or clinically-relevant non-major bleeding. We estimated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 503 articles, we included five RCTs (n = 7,242) at overall low risk of bias with median follow-up of 12-months. Compared to standard DAPT, short DAPT did not increase MACE (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84-1.23), all-cause death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20) or stent thrombosis (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.73-2.93). Short DAPT reduced major bleeding (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.90) and the composite of major or clinically-relevant non-major bleeding (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.81), translating to 21 and 34 fewer events, respectively, per 1000 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In HBR PCI, DAPT for 1-3 months compared to 6-12 months reduced clinically-relevant bleeding events without jeopardizing ischemic risk. Short DAPT should be considered in HBR patients receiving PCI.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

It remains unknown whether the recent trend of short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy can simply be applied to patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. conventional DAPT in patients undergoing complex PCI and non-complex PCI (PROSPERO: CRD42022335723). Primary endpoint was the 1-year Net Adverse Clinical Event (NACE). Among 5,323 screened studies, six randomized trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A total of 10,588 complex PCI patients (5,269 vs. 5,319 patients) and 25,618 non-complex PCI patients (12,820 vs 12,798 patients) were randomly assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. conventional DAPT. In complex PCI patients, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of NACE than conventional DAPT [Odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.91, P = 0.003], whereas in non-complex PCI patients, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a trend toward lowering the risk of NACE (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.02, P = 0.09). This meta-analysis across randomized trials demonstrated that a strategy of short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces the risk of 1-year NACE in patients undergoing complex PCI.

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention in high bleeding risk: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is still debated. The current study, using the totality of existing evidence, evaluated the impact of an abbreviated DAPT regimen in HBR patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to search randomized clinical trials comparing abbreviated [i.e. very-short (1 month) or short (3 months)] with standard (≥6 months) DAPT in HBR patients without indication for oral anticoagulation. A total of 11 trials, including 9006 HBR patients, were included. Abbreviated DAPT reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.94; I2 = 28%], major bleeding (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, I2 = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, I2 = 0%) compared with standard DAPT. No difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed. Results were consistent, irrespective of HBR definition and clinical presentation.

CONCLUSION

In HBR patients undergoing PCI, a 1- or 3-month abbreviated DAPT regimen was associated with lower bleeding and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing ischaemic events, compared with a ≥6-month DAPT regimen.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021284004.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the effects of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity.

METHODS

We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P_interaction = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P_interaction = 0.920).

CONCLUSIONS

P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853).

Safety and efficacy of shortened dual antiplatelet therapy after complex percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains under investigation. Our aim is to compare shortened (≤3 months) DAPT with longer DAPT in patients undergoing complex PCIs.

METHODS

Three major databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) were screened. The primary endpoint was major bleedings as they are defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

Five studies were included in our analysis, with a total of 9,115 patients. Our meta-analysis met its primary endpoint, as abbreviated DAPT significantly reduced major bleedings by 43% (95% confidence intervals: 0.35-0.93). Ischemic events and mortality were not affected by the shortening of DAPT.

CONCLUSION

Shortened DAPT significantly reduced the odds of major bleedings in patients undergoing complex PCI without increasing the ischemic events or mortality. Thus, it could be considered a safe and feasible option in such patients.

Antiplatelet Therapy Aims and Strategies in Asian Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been the mainstay treatment to reduce ischemic events, such as myocardial infarction or stroke, in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The development of potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (ticagrelor and prasugrel) has helped to further reduce ischemic events, particularly among high-risk patients. Meanwhile, the evolution of newer generations of drug-eluting stents are also improving outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention. Research studies on antiplatelet therapy in recent years have focused on balancing ischemic and bleeding risks through different strategies, which include P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy, escalation and de-escalation, and extended DAPT. Because results from the large number of clinical studies may sometimes appear conflicting, this review aims to summarize recent advances, and demonstrate that they are aligned by a general principle, namely, strategies may be adopted based on treatment aims for specific patients at several time points. Another aim of this review is to outline the important considerations for using antiplatelet therapy in Asian patients, in whom there is a greater prevalence of CYP2C19 loss-of-function mutations, and a common increased risk of bleeding, despite high platelet reactivity (the so-called "East Asian Paradox").

Abbreviated Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Patients With Myocardial Infarction at High Bleeding Risk

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction.

METHODS

In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding.

RESULTS

NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; P_interaction = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; P_interaction = 0.72) with abbreviated APT.

CONCLUSIONS

A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020).

Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty in Patients with Cancer: Clinical Challenges and Management Strategies

The number of cancer survivors in the United States is projected to increase by 31% by 2030. With advances in early screening, diagnosis and therapeutic strategies, a steadily increasing number of patients are surviving cancer. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is now one of the leading causes of death amongst cancer survivors, with the latter group of patients having a higher risk of CAD compared to the general population. Our review covers a range of specific challenges faced by doctors when considering percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in cancer patients; clinical outcomes in cancer patients undergoing PCI, as well as some important technical considerations to be made when making decisions regarding the management strategy in this special population of patients.