Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: protocol for an umbrella review

Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting requires consideration of patient characteristics, and decision makers require a comprehensive overview of the evidence.

METHODS

We performed an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials of extended DAPT (> 12 months) compared with DAPT for 6 to 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. Outcomes of interest were death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, bleeding, and urgent revascularization. We aimed to assess the evidence of benefits and harms among clinically important subgroups (eg, elderly patients, those with diabetes, prior MI, acute coronary syndrome). We assessed the quality of the included reviews by use of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).

RESULTS

Sixteen SRs involving 8 randomized controlled trials were included. Most scored 7 or more points on the AMSTAR checklist. There was no significant difference in outcomes with extended DAPT compared with 6 months of DAPT in most SRs, with the exception of an increased risk of major bleeding. Compared with 12 months, extended DAPT may reduce the risk of MI and stent thrombosis; however, the findings were not consistent across all reviews. There have been conflicting reports of an increased risk of death with extended DAPT. Few SRs assessed outcomes among patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended DAPT may reduce the risk of MI and stent thrombosis but increase the risk of major bleeding and death. Whether the effects of extended DAPT are consistent across patient subgroups is unclear, and future SRs should address this knowledge gap.

Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews

OBJECTIVE

Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a rigorous and transparent knowledge base for translating clinical research into decisions, and thus they represent the basic unit of knowledge in medicine. Umbrella reviews are reviews of previously published systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, they represent one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis currently available, and are becoming increasingly influential in biomedical literature. However, practical guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews is relatively limited.

METHODS

We present a critical educational review of published umbrella reviews, focusing on the essential practical steps required to produce robust umbrella reviews in the medical field.

RESULTS

The current manuscript discusses 10 key points to consider for conducting robust umbrella reviews. The points are: ensure that the umbrella review is really needed, prespecify the protocol, clearly define the variables of interest, estimate a common effect size, report the heterogeneity and potential biases, perform a stratification of the evidence, conduct sensitivity analyses, report transparent results, use appropriate software and acknowledge the limitations. We illustrate these points through recent examples from umbrella reviews and suggest specific practical recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The current manuscript provides a practical guidance for conducting umbrella reviews in medical areas. Researchers, clinicians and policy makers might use the key points illustrated here to inform the planning, conduction and reporting of umbrella reviews in medicine.