Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Concise Review for Clinicians

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) combines two antiplatelet agents to decrease the risk of thrombotic complications associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Emerging data about the duration of DAPT is being published continuously. New approaches are trying to balance the time, benefits, and risks for patients taking DAPT for established cardiovascular diseases. Short-term dual DAPT of 3-6 months, or even 1 month in high-bleeding risk patients, is equivalent in terms of efficacy and effectiveness compared to long-term DAPT for patients who experienced percutaneous coronary intervention in an acute coronary syndrome setting. Prolonged DAPT beyond 12 months reduces stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction rates but increases bleeding risk. Extended DAPT does not significantly benefit stable coronary artery disease patients in reducing stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. Ticagrelor and aspirin reduce cardiovascular events in stable coronary artery disease with diabetes but carry a higher bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy duration in atrial fibrillation patients after percutaneous coronary intervention depends on individual characteristics and bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy is crucial for post-coronary artery bypass graft and transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Aspirin (ASA) monotherapy is preferred. Antiplatelet therapy duration in peripheral artery disease depends on the scenario. Adding vorapaxar and cilostazol may benefit secondary prevention and claudication, respectively. Carotid artery disease patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke benefit from antiplatelet therapy and combining ASA and clopidogrel is more effective than ASA alone. The optimal duration of DAPT after carotid artery stenting is uncertain. Resistance to ASA and clopidogrel poses an incremental risk of deleterious cardiovascular events and stroke. The selection and duration of antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease requires careful consideration of both efficacy and safety outcomes. The use of combination therapies may provide added benefits but should be weighed against the risk of bleeding. Further research and clinical trials are needed to optimize antiplatelet treatment in different patient populations and clinical scenarios.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a Polyzene-F nanocoated coronary stent system: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis

Background

A stent for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) provides a requirement for a long-term antiplatelet therapy because of the high possibility of the development of stent thrombosis. It was against this background that both Cobra and Catania Polyzene-F (PzF) stents were designed to reduce the occurrence of stent thrombosis (ST). In this study, we review the safety and effectiveness of a PzF-nanocoated stent.

Methods

This systematic review with the title was registered in PROSPERO (No.398781). The inclusion criteria were including studies among patients with PzF-nanocoated coronary stents and reported target vessel failure (TVF) and ST as the outcomes, and the exclusion criteria were excluding reported patients who could not receive the adjunctive medical therapies or without the necessary endpoints. Reports about PzF-nanocoated stents were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science and other sources. Because of the existence of few reports and a lack of comparison groups, a single-arm meta-analysis was conducted in R software (v3.6.2), using a random-effects model with the generic inverse variance method. After a heterogeneity test, assessment of evidence quality was conducted by using GRADE software. A funnel plot Egger's test was performed to evaluate publication bias, and a sensitivity analysis was done to determine the robustness of the overall effects.

Results

Six studies of 1,768 subjects were included. The primary endpoint that pooled the TVF rate was 8.9% (95% CI 7.5%–10.2%), which comprised the pooled cardiac death (CD) rate (1.5%, 95% CI 0%–3%), myocardial infarction (MI) rate (2.7%, 95% CI 0.4%–5.1%), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (4.8%, 95% CI 2.4%–7.2%), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) (5.2%, 95% CI 4.2%–6.4%), while the secondary endpoint ST was 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%–0.9%). The funnel plots of TVF, CD, TVR, and TLR did not show any serious publication bias, and TVF, TVR, and TLR showed evidence of moderate quality in GRADE assessment. The sensitivity analysis showed that TVF, TLR, and ST exhibited good stability (I2 = 26.9%, 16.4%, and 35.5%, respectively), while the other endpoints showed moderate instability.

Conclusion

These data indicated that the PzF-nanocoated coronary stents of the Cobra and Catania systems demonstrated good safety and efficacy in clinical application. However, the sample size of patients included in the reports was relatively small, and this meta-analysis will be updated if more studies are published in the future.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42023398781

Long-Term Outcomes and Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Intervention With Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: The Veterans Affairs Extended DAPT Study

Background Recent guidelines on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) balance the subsequent risks of major bleeding with ischemic events. Although generally favoring shorter DAPT duration with second-generation drug-eluting stents, the effects on long-term outcomes in the wider population are uncertain. Methods and Results We tracked all patients having PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System between 2006 and 2016 for death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding up to 13 years. We compared these outcomes with 4 DAPT durations of 1 to 5, 6 to 9, 10 to 12, and 13 to 18 months after the index PCI using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs from Cox proportional hazards models adjusted by inverse probability weighting. A total of 40 882 subjects with PCI were followed up for a median of 4.3 (25%-75%: 2.4-6.5) years. DAPT discontinuation was rare early after PCI (5.8% at 1-5 months and 6.3% at 6-9 months) but increased (19% and 44%) >9 months. The risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death was higher (HR, 2.03-3.41) with DAPT discontinuation <9 months, likely reflecting premature cessation from factors related to early death. DAPT discontinuation after 9 months following PCI was associated with lower risks of death (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]), cardiac death (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70-0.90]), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.82]), and major bleeding (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.74-0.91]). Results were similar with an index PCI for an acute coronary syndrome. Conclusions Stopping DAPT after 9 months is associated with lower long-term risks of adverse ischemic and bleeding events and supports recent guidelines of shorter duration DAPT after PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents.

Challenges of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy use following acute coronary syndromes

An acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event is associated with a high risk of recurrent ACS, stroke, and death. To ameliorate the risk of subsequent events, current guidelines for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation ACS recommend long-term management strategies for secondary prevention including risk factor modification and anti-ischemic and antiplatelet therapies. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), comprising aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, is a critical component of secondary prevention therapy following ACS. However, despite the importance of DAPT for secondary prevention after ACS, questions remain over the optimal duration of therapy. Clinical evidence is emerging that maintenance DAPT >12 months lowers the risk of recurrent ACS events; however, this benefit must be considered against any potential risks of prolonged DAPT such as bleeding. Several tools for bleeding risk assessment have shown promise; however, their limited accuracy and discriminative power necessitates further development. Assessment of patient ischemic risk should consider the complexity of the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure, anatomic burden of coronary artery disease, and additional underlying risk factors. Consequently, identifying patients in whom the risk:benefit ratio favors prolonged DAPT may prove invaluable for clinicians in deciding which patients should continue or stop taking DAPT at 12 months after PCI, or consider P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy as an option. This article reviews the most recent information about the risks and benefits of DAPT continued for >12 months after ACS and provides critical guidance to assist physicians in identifying patients most likely to benefit from a secondary prevention strategy with DAPT.

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

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.

METHODS

Randomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.