External validity of the PRECISE-DAPT score in patients undergoing PCI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antithrombotic Therapy in High Bleeding Risk, Part II: Noncardiac Percutaneous Interventions

Over the past decades, there have been great advancements in the antithrombotic management of patients undergoing percutaneous interventions, but most of the available evidence derives from studies conducted in the setting of cardiac interventions. Antithrombotic treatment regimens used in patients undergoing percutaneous cardiac interventions, in particular coronary, are frequently extrapolated to patients undergoing noncardiac interventions. However, the differences in risk profile of the population treated and the types of interventions performed may translate into differences is the safety and efficacy associated with antithrombotic therapy. Noncardiac percutaneous interventions are commonly performed in patients at high bleeding risk, which may indeed impact outcomes, hence underscoring the importance of risk stratification to guide clinical decision-making processes. In this review, we appraise the available evidence on antithrombotic therapy in high-bleeding-risk patients undergoing noncardiac percutaneous interventions.

Antithrombotic Therapy in High Bleeding Risk, Part I: Percutaneous Cardiac Interventions

Antithrombotic therapy after cardiac percutaneous interventions is key for the prevention of thrombotic events but is inevitably associated with increased bleeding, proportional to the number, duration, and potency of the antithrombotic agents used. Bleeding complications have important clinical implications, which in some cases may outweigh the expected benefit of reducing thrombotic events. Because the response to antithrombotic agents varies widely among patients, there has been a relentless effort toward the identification of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR), in whom modulation of antithrombotic therapy may be needed to optimize the balance between safety and efficacy. Among patients undergoing cardiac percutaneous interventions, recent advances in technology have allowed for strategies of de-escalation to reduce bleeding without compromising efficacy, and HBR patients are expected to benefit the most from such approaches. Guidelines do not extensively expand upon the topic of de-escalation strategies of antithrombotic therapy in HBR patients. In this review, we discuss the evidence and provide practical recommendations on optimal antithrombotic therapy in HBR patients undergoing various cardiac percutaneous interventions.

Machine learning derived model for the prediction of bleeding in dual antiplatelet therapy patients

Objective

This study aimed to develop a predictive model for assessing bleeding risk in dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) patients.

Methods

A total of 18,408 DAPT patients were included. Data on patients' demographics, clinical features, underlying diseases, past history, and laboratory examinations were collected from Affiliated Dongyang Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. The patients were randomly divided into two groups in a proportion of 7:3, with the most used for model development and the remaining for internal validation. LASSO regression, multivariate logistic regression, and six machine learning models, including random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbor imputing (KNN), decision tree (DT), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), light gradient boosting machine (LGBM), and Support Vector Machine (SVM), were used to develop prediction models. Model prediction performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), calibration curves, decision curve analysis (DCA), clinical impact curve (CIC), and net reduction curve (NRC).

Results

The XGBoost model demonstrated the highest AUC. The model features were comprised of seven clinical variables, including: HGB, PLT, previous bleeding, cerebral infarction, sex, Surgical history, and hypertension. A nomogram was developed based on seven variables. The AUC of the model was 0.861 (95% CI 0.847-0.875) in the development cohort and 0.877 (95% CI 0.856-0.898) in the validation cohort, indicating that the model had good differential performance. The results of calibration curve analysis showed that the calibration curve of this nomogram model was close to the ideal curve. The clinical decision curve also showed good clinical net benefit of the nomogram model.

Conclusions

This study successfully developed a predictive model for estimating bleeding risk in DAPT patients. It has the potential to optimize treatment planning, improve patient outcomes, and enhance resource utilization.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock

Managing antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing complex and high-risk in indicated patients, including those treated with complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS), is challenging. This review highlights the critical role of antithrombotic therapy, during and after PCI, to optimize the efficacy while minimizing risks. Unfractionated heparin remains the mainstay anticoagulant for complex PCI and CS, with bivalirudin as a potential safer alternative. Cangrelor offers consistent antiplatelet effects, especially when timely absorption of oral agents is uncertain.

High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Coronary and Structural Heart Interventions

Percutaneous coronary and structural heart interventions are increasingly preferred over cardiac surgery due to reduced rates of periprocedural complications and faster recovery but often require postprocedural antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of local thrombotic events. Antithrombotic therapy is inevitably associated with increased bleeding, the extent of which is proportional to the number, duration, and potency of the antithrombotic agents used. Bleeding complications have important clinical implications, which may outweigh the expected benefit of reducing thrombotic events. Herein, we provide a comprehensive description of the classification and clinical relevance of high bleeding risk in patients undergoing coronary and structural heart interventions.

Bleeding risk prediction after acute myocardial infarction-integrating cancer data: the updated PRECISE-DAPT cancer score

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study assessed the impact of incorporating cancer as a predictor on performance of the PRECISE-DAPT score.

METHODS

A nationally linked cohort of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients between 1 January 2005 and 31 March 2019 was derived from the UK Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project and the UK Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care registries. The primary outcome was major bleeding at 1 year. A new modified score was generated by adding cancer as a binary variable to the PRECISE-DAPT score using a Cox regression model and compared its performance to the original PRECISE-DAPT score.

RESULTS

A total of 216 709 ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients were included, of which 4569 had cancer. The original score showed moderate accuracy (C-statistic .60), and the modified score showed modestly higher discrimination (C-statistics .64; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.04) even in patients without cancer (C-statistics .63; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.04). The net reclassification index was .07. The bleeding rates of the modified score risk categories (high, moderate, low, and very low bleeding risk) were 6.3%, 3.8%, 2.9%, and 2.2%, respectively. According to the original score, 65.5% of cancer patients were classified as high bleeding risk (HBR) and 21.6% were low or very low bleeding risk. According to the modified score, 94.0% of cancer patients were HBR, 6.0% were moderate bleeding risk, and no cancer patient was classified as low or very low bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding cancer to the PRECISE-DAPT score identifies the majority of patients with cancer as HBR and can improve its discrimination ability without undermining its performance in patients without cancer.

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.

Antithrombotic Treatment for Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Evidence and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The clinical presentation of coronary artery disease can range from asymptomatic, through stable disease in the form of chronic coronary syndrome, to acute coronary syndrome. Chronic coronary syndrome is a frequent condition, and secondary prevention of ischaemic events is essential.

SUMMARY

Antithrombotic therapy is a key component of secondary prevention strategies, and it may vary in type and intensity depending on patient characteristics, comorbidities, and revascularisation modalities. Dual antiplatelet therapy is the default strategy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and recent coronary stent implantation, while antiplatelet monotherapy is commonly prescribed for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events. Oral anticoagulation, in combination with antiplatelet therapy or alone, is used in patients with, e.g., concomitant atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism.

KEY MESSAGES

This review provides an overview of antithrombotic treatment strategies in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Key messages from current guidelines are conveyed, and we provide future perspectives on long-term antithrombotic strategies.

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.

Antithrombotic Therapy Optimization in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) poses numerous challenges. Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), which combines dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with oral anticoagulation (OAC), provides anti-ischemic protection but increases the risk of bleeding. Therefore, TAT is generally limited to a short phase (1 week) after PCI, followed by aspirin withdrawal and continuation of 6-12 months of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT), comprising OAC plus clopidogrel, followed by OAC alone. This pharmacological approach has been shown to mitigate bleeding risk while preserving adequate anti-ischemic efficacy. However, the decision-making process remains complex in elderly patients and those with co-morbidities, significantly influencing ischemic and bleeding risk. In this review, we discuss the available evidence in this area from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses for post-procedural antithrombotic therapies in patients with non-valvular AF undergoing PCI.

Individualization of Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Coronary Stenting: A Comprehensive, Evidence-Based Review

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), comprising aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, is the cornerstone of post-percutaneous coronary intervention treatment to prevent stent thrombosis and reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The selection of an optimal DAPT regimen, considering the interplay of various antiplatelet agents, patient profiles, and procedural characteristics, remains an evolving challenge. Traditionally, a standard duration of 12 months has been recommended for DAPT in most patients. While contemporary guidelines provide general frameworks, DAPT modulation with longer or shorter treatment courses followed by aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy are evolving towards an individualized strategy to optimize the balance between efficacy and safety. This review comprehensively examines the current landscape of DAPT strategies after coronary stenting, with a focus on emerging evidence for treatment individualization.