Duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome patients: a network meta-analysis

De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAPT strategies were included and arms of interest were compared via NMA. Partial ranking of each identified arm and for each investigated endpoint was also performed.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search covered several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Science) from inception to 15 October 2023. Medical subject headings and keywords related to ACS, PCI and DAPT interventions were used. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Clinical trials registers were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials.

INTERVENTIONS

Six strategies were assessed: T1 arm: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and prasugrel for 12 months; T2 arm: ASA and low-dose prasugrel for 12 months; T3 arm: ASA and ticagrelor for 12 months; T4 arm: DAPT de-escalation (ASA+P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-3 months, then single antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y12 inhibitor or DAPT with clopidogrel); T5 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 12 months; T6 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 3-6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

RESULTS

23 RCTs (75 064 patients with ACS) were included. No differences in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death, recurrent MI or MACE were found when the six strategies were compared, although with different levels of certainty of evidence. ASA and clopidogrel for 12 or 3-6 months may result in a large increase of ST risk versus ASA plus full-dose prasugrel (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, and OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.26, respectively; low certainty evidence for both comparisons). DAPT de-escalation probably results in a reduced risk of all bleedings compared with ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, moderate-certainty evidence) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75), while it may not increase the risk of ST. ASA plus 12-month clopidogrel may reduce all bleedings versus ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94, low certainty) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

DAPT de-escalation and ASA-clopidogrel regimens may reduce bleeding events compared with 12 months ASA and potent P2Y12 inhibitors. 3-6 months or 12-month aspirin-clopidogrel may increase ST risk compared with 12-month aspirin plus potent P2Y12 inhibitors, while DAPT de-escalation probably does not.

Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Limited data comparing prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome are available. Online databases, including MEDLINE and Cochrane Central, were queried to compare these drugs. The primary outcomes of this meta-analysis are myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, noncardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The secondary outcome is major bleeding. A total of 9 studies, including 94,590 patients (prasugrel group = 32,759; ticagrelor group = 61,831), were included in this meta-analysis. The overall mean age was 62.73 years, whereas the mean age for the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups was 63.80 and 61.65 years, respectively. Prasugrel is equally effective as compared with ticagrelor in preventing MI. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding all-cause mortality, stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding. In patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel is equally effective when compared with ticagrelor in preventing MI.

Very long-term outlook of acute coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of polymer-free versus durable-polymer new-generation drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND

Detailed long-term follow-up data on patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in general, and those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in particular, are limited. We aimed to appraise the long-term outlook of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with state-of-the-art coronary stents for STEMI, other types of ACS and stable coronary artery disease (CAD), and also explore the potential beneficial impact of new-generation polymer-free drug-eluting stents (DES) in this setting.

METHODS

Baseline, procedural and very long-term outcome data on patients undergoing PCI and randomized to implantation of new-generation polymer-free vs. durable polymer DES were systematically collected, explicitly distinguishing subjects with admission diagnosis of STEMI, non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTEACS), and stable CAD. Outcomes of interest included death, myocardial infarction, revascularization (i.e. patient-oriented composite endpoints [POCE]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and device-oriented composite endpoints (DOCE).

RESULTS

A total of 3002 patients were included, 1770 (59.0%) with stable CAD, 921 (30.7%) with NSTEACS, and 311 (10.4%) with STEMI. At long-term follow-up (7.5±3.1 years), all clinical events were significantly more common in the NSTEACS group and, to a lesser extent, in the stable CAD group (e.g. POCE occurred in, respectively, 637 [44.7%] vs. 964 [37.9%] vs. 133 [31.5%], P<0.001). While these differences were largely attributable to adverse coexisting features in patients with NSTEACS (e.g. advanced age, insulin-dependent diabetes, and extent of CAD), the unfavorable outlook of patients presenting with NSTEACS persisted even after multivariable adjustment including several prognostically relevant factors (hazard ratio [HR] of NSTEACS vs. stable CAD 1.19 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.38], P=0.016). Notably, even after encompassing all prognostically impactful features, no difference between polymer-free and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents appeared (HR=0.96 [0.84-1.10], P=0.560).

CONCLUSIONS

Unstable coronary artery disease, especially when presenting without ST-elevation, represents an informative marker of adverse long-term prognosis in current state-of-the-art invasive cardiology practice. Even considering admission diagnosis, and despite of using no polymer, polymer-free DES showed similar results with regards to safety and efficacy when compared with DES with permanent polymer.

Impact of secondary prevention medical therapies on outcomes of patients suffering from Myocardial Infarction with NonObstructive Coronary Artery disease (MINOCA): A meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the impact of secondary prevention medical therapies (statins, ACE-inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB), beta-blockers (BB) and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT)) on outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA).

METHODS

Five adjusted observational studies encompassing 10,546 were included in this meta-analysis. All-cause death was the primary endpoint, while Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

After 24 months of follow up, statins (tested in 8093 patients) were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause death (HR 0.60:0.45-0.81, p 〈0,001), while ACE-inhibitors/ARB (on 9666 patients) were not. Aggregate data from two studies (n = 9720, 7719 on beta-blockers, 6423 on DAPT) indicated that beta-blockers and DAPT (median follow-up 34.1 and 15.7 months, respectively) were both associated with a significant reduction of all-cause death (HR0.81:0.66-0.99, p = 0.04, and HR0.73:0.55-0.98, p = 0.03, for beta-blockers and DAPT, respectively). Among the investigated therapies, only ACE-inhibitors/ARBs entailed a reduced risk of MACE (HR0.65:0.44-0.94, p = 0.02, all CI 95%) over 36.5 months (four studies, n = 10,150). None of the investigated therapies was associated with a reduced risk of AMI.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from adjusted observational studies suggest that beta-blockers, statins and DAPT are associated with a survival benefit among MINOCA patients. ACE-inhibitors/ARB entail a reduced risk of MACE while none of the investigated secondary prevention therapies is associated with a reduced risk of AMI. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.