[The clinical value of bleeding risk stratification]

Prediction of bleeding risk in patients receiving antithrombotic treatment has been repeatedly attempted and resulted in multiple risk models. Risk stratification can be used to personalize antithrombotic treatment to reduce bleeding complications. Although these risk models are validated and incorporated in the current guidelines, the feasibility and effectivity in daily practice remains questionable. Personalized antithrombotic treatment may be complex due to the number of risk factors that should be considered. Furthermore, most risk scores show moderate predictive value when they are validated externally or for a different treatment indication. However, personalized treatment seems key to minimalize bleeding events and is therefore indicated in all patients receiving antithrombotics. To increase the effectivity, it is important to use the appropriate model for each treatment indication. Online tools and the implementation of risk scores in the electronic medical record could facilitate the use of these scores.

Outcomes with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI according to bleeding risk: A Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is a promising novel strategy to reduce bleeding complications compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In order to personalise treatment with DAPT based on patients' bleeding risk, we compared outcomes after PCI between P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT according to bleeding risk.

METHODS

A search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short period of DAPT to standard DAPT after PCI was performed. Outcome differences between treatment groups regarding major bleedings, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding credible intervals (CrI) according a Bayesian random effects model in patients with and without high bleeding risk (HBR).

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 30,084 patients were selected. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared to DAPT reduced major bleedings in the total population (HR: 0.65, 95 % CrI: 0.44 to 0.92). The HRs of the HBR and non-HBR subgroups showed a similar reduction of bleedings for monotherapy (HBR: HR 0.66, 95 % CrI: 0.25 to 1.74; non-HBR: HR 0.63, 95 % CrI: 0.36 to 1.09). No notable differences between treatments on MACCE and NACE were observed in either sub-group or in the total population.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of bleeding risk, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is the favourable choice after PCI regarding major bleedings and does not increase ischemic events compared to DAPT. This suggests that bleeding risk is not decisive when considering P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy.

Short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in diabetic patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome treated with a new-generation drug-eluting stent

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and treated with a drug-eluting stent (DES) remains unclear. This is a prespecified sub-study from the Randomised Evaluation of short-term DUal antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute Coronary syndromE treated with a new generation DES (REDUCE) trial that was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of short-term versus standard 12 months DAPT in diabetic patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using the COMBO stent.

METHODS

In this study we included ACS diabetic patients enroled in the REDUCE trial treated with the COMBO stent and randomly assigned to either 3 or 12 months of DAPT. The primary study endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, target vessel revascularisation (TVR), and bleeding complications at 12 and 24 months follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 307 diabetic patients were included, of which 162 (52.8%) in the 3 months DAPT group and 145 (47.2%) in the 12 months DAPT group. Patient characteristics, PCI success, and number of stents used were similar in the 3 and 12 months DAPT groups. Occurrence of the primary study endpoint at 12 and 24 months follow-up was comparable between the two groups (3.1 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.865, and 15.8 vs. 14.9%, p = 0.824, respectively). Moreover, the prevalence of the specific clinical outcome parameters (all-cause mortality), MI, ST, stroke, TVR, and bleeding was similar in both study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This sub-analysis shows similar clinical outcomes following 3 months DAPT as compared to 12 months DAPT in diabetic patients undergoing PCI for ACS using the COMBO stent. These results suggest that, even in this particular subset of patients, short duration of DAPT might be considered safe. Future larger studies are warranted to provide more precise estimations in terms of safety and efficacy of short term DAPT in these high-risk patients.