De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes: Why, how and when?

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.

Impact of ethnicity on antiplatelet treatment regimens for bleeding reduction in acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and pre-specified subgroup meta-analysis

AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing bleeding reduction strategies using antiplatelet treatment regimens (BRATs) in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have shown promising results, but the generalizability of these findings may be significantly influenced by the ethnicity of the patients enrolled, given that East Asian (EA) patients show different ischaemic-bleeding risk profile compared to non-EA patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

RCTs comparing a BRAT vs. standard 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were selected. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as defined in each trial and the primary safety endpoint was minor or major bleeding. Twenty-six RCTs testing seven different BRATs were included. The only strategy associated with a trade-off in MACE was 'upfront unguided de-escalation' in the subgroup of non-EAs (risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.24). All but aspirin monotherapy-based strategies (i.e. 'short and very short DAPT followed by aspirin') were associated with reduced bleeding compared with standard DAPT in both EA and non-EA patients. There were no significant differences between subgroups, but the lack of RCTs in some of the included strategies and the difference in the certainty of evidence between EA and non-EA patients revealed that the evidence in support of different BRATs in ACS undergoing PCI is influenced by ethnicity. Moreover, absolute risk reduction estimation revealed that some BRATs might be more effective than others in reducing bleeding according to ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

The majority of BRATs are associated with reduced bleeding without any trade-off in hard ischaemic endpoints regardless of ethnicity. However, the supporting evidence and relative safety profiles of different BRATs might be significantly affected by ethnicity, which should be taken into account in clinical practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023416710).

Antiplatelet therapy guided by CYP2C19 point-of-care pharmacogenetics plus multidimensional treatment decisions

Aim: Implementation of CYP2C19 point-of-care (POC) pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing with personalized treatment recommendations. Methods: POC CYP2C19 genotyping plus expert evaluation of risk factors for ischemic and bleeding events. Results: 167 patients underwent PGx testing, 54 (32.3%) were CYP2C19 loss of function carriers, and POC versus standard PGx analysis results for *2 and *3 variants matched in 100%. Antiplatelet therapy was adjusted in 44 patients (26.3%), but always required consideration of patient-specific factors. Conclusion: CYP2C19 POC-PGx is reliable and offers clinically relevant advantages for immediate evidence-based adaptations of antiplatelet therapy, whereas in less acute cases conventional PGx testing can also have advantages. Antiplatelet therapy has become more complex, and implementation of PGx-based personalized antiplatelet therapy requires complementary expert knowledge.

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.

Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Older Adults: Recent Advances and Gaps in Evidence

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in older adults, yet its management remains challenging. Treatment choices are made complex by the frailty burden of older patients, a high prevalence of comorbidities and body composition abnormalities (e.g., sarcopenia), the complexity of coronary anatomy, and the frequent presence of multivessel disease, as well as the coexistence of major ischemic and bleeding risk factors. Recent randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have provided new data on optimal management of complex patients with CAD. However, frail older adults are still underrepresented in the literature. This narrative review aims to highlight the importance of assessing frailty as an aid to guide therapeutic decision-making and tailor CAD management to the specific needs of older adults, taking into account age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, polypharmacy, and potential drug interactions. We also discuss gaps in the evidence and offer perspectives on how best in the future to optimize the global strategy of CAD management in older adults.

Bleeding in acute coronary syndrome: from definitions, incidence, and prognosis to prevention and management

INTRODUCTION

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the ischemic benefit of antithrombotic treatment is counterbalanced by the risk of bleeding. The recognition that bleeding events have prognostic implications (i.e. mortality) similar to recurrent ischemic events led to the development of treatment regimens aimed at balancing both ischemic and bleeding risks.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at describing definitions, incidence, and prognosis related to bleeding events in ACS patients as well as bleeding-avoidance strategies for their prevention and management of bleeding complications.

EXPERT OPINION

Management of ACS patients has witnessed remarkable progress after the shift in focusing on the trade-off between ischemia and bleeding. Efforts in standardizing bleeding definitions will allow for better defining the prognostic impact of different types of bleeding events and enable to identify the high-bleeding risk patient. Such efforts will allow to balance the trade-off between the thrombotic and bleeding risk of the individual patient translating into better downward diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making. Novel strategies aiming at maximizing the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens as well as the development of novel antithrombotic drugs and reversal agents and technological advances will allow for optimization of bleeding-avoidance strategies and management of bleeding complications.

Bivalirudin in acute coronary syndromes

INTRODUCTION

Bivalirudin, a bivalent direct thrombin inhibitor, has been developed to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

AREAS COVERED

Despite showing a superior safety profile compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH), bivalirudin is not considered the anticoagulant of choice in ACS patients undergoing PCI, mainly because of an increased rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) shown by several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in addition to limited availability in certain countries and increased costs. However, RCTs on bivalirudin have been characterized by several confounding factors hindering the interpretation of its safety and efficacy compared with UFH among the spectrum of ACS patients. Furthermore, a significant body of evidence has demonstrated that the risk of acute ST can be mitigated by a full-dose infusion regimen following PCI, without compromising the favorable safety profile compared to UFH.

EXPERT OPINION

In light of the increased understanding of the prognostic relevance of bleeding events and the excellent safety profile of bivalirudin, recent trial evidence may allow for this anticoagulant agent to reemerge and have a more prominent role in the management of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Advancements in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques: A Comprehensive Literature Review of Mixed Studies and Practice Guidelines

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a widely used therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD), but it carries risks and complications. Adhering to evidence-based practice guidelines is crucial for optimal outcomes. This review compares the recommendations of the 2021 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (ACC/AHA/SCAI) and 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for coronary artery revascularization and discusses emerging trends and novel devices in PCI. A comprehensive literature review of mixed studies, clinical trials, and guidelines was conducted. Intravascular imaging, including intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography, for stent optimization, is also recommended when feasible. However, differences reflecting variations in evidence quality interpretation and applicability were identified. Furthermore, novel devices and technologies with the potential for improving outcomes were highlighted, but their safety and efficacy compared to standard-of-care techniques require further evaluation through extensive randomized trials. Clinicians should stay updated on advancements and personalize treatment decisions based on individual patient factors. Future research should address evidence gaps and barriers to adopting innovative devices and techniques. This review provides recommendations for clinical practice, emphasizing the need to remain current with the evolving landscape of PCI to optimize patient outcomes. The discoveries provide valuable counsel for the deliberation of clinical interventions and prospective inquiries within the realm of interventional cardiology. Overall, the review underscores the importance of evidence-based practice and ongoing advancements in PCI for CAD management.

De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: Time to change our strategy?

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the gold standard after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Because local and systemic ischemic complications can occur particularly in the early phase (i.e. 1-3 months) after ACS or PCI, the synergistic platelet inhibition of aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is of the utmost importance in this early phase. Moreover, the use of the more potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor have shown to further reduce the incidence of ischemic events compared to clopidogrel after an ACS. On the other hand, prolonged and potent antiplatelet therapy are inevitably associated with increased bleeding, which unlike thrombotic risk, tends to be stable over time and may outweigh the benefit of reducing ischemic events in these patients. The duration and composition of antiplatelet therapy remains a topic of debate in cardiology due to competing ischemic and bleeding risks, with guidelines and recommendations considerably evolving in the past years. An emerging strategy, called "de-escalation", consisting in the administration of a less intense antithrombotic therapy after a short course of standard DAPT, has shown to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in ischemic events. De-escalation may be achieved with different antithrombotic strategies and can be either unguided or guided by platelet function or genetic testing. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence and provide practical recommendations on the use of different de-escalation strategies in patients with ACS and CCS.

Acetylsalicylic acid challenge or desensitization in sensitive patients with cardiovascular disease

The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is problematic in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to it or with cross-reactive types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose ASA challenge (LDAC) and desensitization to allow ASA therapy at an antiplatelet dose in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple related risk factors and histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 chemically unrelated NSAIDs. We studied prospectively all patients with such histories and ≥ 3 risk factors for ASCVD (group I), chronic coronary syndrome (CCS, group II), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with indication for ASA desensitization (group III). Patients from groups I and II underwent LDACs (cumulative dose of 110 mg), while those from group III were desensitized (cumulative dose of 100.1 mg). We evaluated 103 patients: 62 from group I, 24 from group II, and 17 from group III. Eighty-two of the 86 patients from the first two groups underwent LDACs and 2 reacted. Subsequently, 22 (27.5%) of the 80 patients with negative LDACs were administered dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA after successful percutaneous coronary interventions, thus sparing desensitizations. The remaining 4 patients with CCS and all 17 patients from group III were successfully desensitized. In this pragmatic study, LDAC proved to be a safe and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying patients with histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 different NSAIDs who can tolerate ASA at antiplatelet doses. Routine LDAC is advisable in all patients at high risk for ASCVD or with CCS who report HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 NSAIDs. ASA desensitization remains a safe and effective option in patients with ACS. Study flow-chart. ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CCS chronic coronary syndrome; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ASA acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention; NSAIDs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NERD NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease; NECD NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease; NIUAA NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIUAA single NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIDHR single NSAID-induced delayed hypersensitivity reaction.

Gender-differences in antithrombotic therapy across the spectrum of ischemic heart disease: Time to tackle the Yentl syndrome?

The incidence and clinical presentation of ischemic heart disease (IHD), as well as thrombotic and bleeding risks, appear to differ between genders. Compared with men, women feature an increased thrombotic risk, probably related to an increased platelet reactivity, higher level of coagulation factors, and sex-associated unique cardiovascular risk factors, such as pregnancy-related (i.e., pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes), gynecological disorders (i.e., polycystic ovary syndrome, early menopause) and autoimmune or systemic inflammatory diseases. At the same time, women are also at increased risk of bleeding, due to inappropriate dosing of antithrombotic agents, smaller blood vessels, lower body weight and comorbidities, such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Pharmacological strategies focused on the personalization of antithrombotic treatment may, therefore, be particularly appealing in women in light of their higher bleeding and ischemic risks. Paradoxically, although women represent a large proportion of cardiovascular patients in our practice, adequate high-quality clinical trial data on women remain scarce and inadequate to guide decision-making processes. As a result, IHD in women tends to be understudied, underdiagnosed and undertreated, a phenomenon known as a "Yentl syndrome." It is, therefore, compelling for the scientific community to embark on dedicated clinical trials to address underrepresentation of women and to acquire evidence-based knowledge in the personalization of antithrombotic therapy in women.