Search

Importance: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor., Objective: To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction., Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding., Results: Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.

Aims: To summarize the totality of evidence validating the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score, ascertaining its aggregate discrimination and validation power in multiple population subsets., Methods and Results: We searched electronic databases from 2017 (PRECISE-DAPT proposal) up to March 2023 for studies that reported the occurrence of out-of-hospital bleedings according to the PRECISE-DAPT score in patients receiving DAPT following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as summary statistics and were calculated using a random-effects model. Primary and secondary endpoints were the occurrence of any and major bleeding, respectively. A total of 21 studies and 67 283 patients were included; 24.7% of patients (N = 16 603) were at high bleeding risk (PRECISE-DAPT score ≥25), and when compared to those at low bleeding risk, they experienced a significantly higher rate of any out-of-hospital bleeding (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 2.24-3.29; P-value <0.001) and major bleedings (OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 2.71-4.55; P-value <0.001). Pooling data on c-stat whenever available, the PRECISE-DAPT score showed a moderate discriminative power in predicting major bleeding events at 1 year (pooled c-stat: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.64-0.77)., Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis confirms the external validity of the PRECISE-DAPT score in predicting out-of-hospital bleeding outcomes in patients on DAPT following PCI. The moderate discriminative ability highlights the need for future improved risk prediction tools in the field., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: It remains unclear whether P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy preserves ischemic protection while limiting bleeding risk compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objectives: We sought to assess the effects of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT vs standard DAPT in relation to PCI complexity., Methods: We pooled patient-level data from randomized controlled trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated outcomes after coronary revascularization. Complex PCI was defined as any of 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or chronic total occlusion. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding., Results: Of 22,941 patients undergoing PCI from 5 trials, 4,685 (20.4%) with complex PCI had higher rates of ischemic events. The primary efficacy endpoint was similar between P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT among patients with complex PCI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.64-1.19) and noncomplex PCI (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.76-1.09; P interaction  = 0.770). The treatment effect was consistent across all the components of the complex PCI definition. Compared with DAPT, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy consistently reduced BARC 3 or 5 bleeding in complex PCI (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.84) and noncomplex PCI patients (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37-0.64; P interaction  = 0.920)., Conclusions: P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1-month to 3-month DAPT was associated with similar rates of fatal and ischemic events and lower risk of major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, irrespective of PCI complexity. (PROSPERO [P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Revascularization: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials]; CRD42020176853)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by institutional support of the Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, which had no role in the data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report. Dr Mehran has received grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, BMS, CSL Behring, DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco Inc/dba PLx Pharma Inc, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, and Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs); has other financial relationships with Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano Corp, and Watermark Research Partners, outside the submitted work; has received nonfinancial support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and has other relationships with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb. Drs Branca and Heg are affiliated with CTU Bern, University of Bern, which has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees. However, CTU Bern is involved in design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations such as pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. Dr Kimura has received research grants from Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. Dr Hahn has received grants or contracts from Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology, Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr Windecker has received research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave and Xeltis; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Gibson has received research or grant funding from CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson Corporation, and SCAD Alliance; has received consulting fees from Amarin, Amag Pharmaceuticals, Angel Medical Corporation, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZenca, Bayer Corporation Bioclinica, Boston Clinical Research Institute, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caladrius Biosciences, Cardiovascular Clinical Science Foundation, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, CeleCor Therapeutics, CSL Behring, CytoSorbents Medical, Inc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Eidos Therapeutics, EXCITE International, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Inari, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson Corporation, MD Magazine, MedImmune, Medtelligence, MedTrace, Merck Microport, Micodrop, LLC, Novo Nordisk, Paratek, PERT Consortium, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PHRI, PLxPharma, Revance Therapeutics, SCAI, Smart Medics, Somahlution, and Web MD; and has received personal fees from UpToDate in Cardiovascular Medicine, and other from Absolutys, nference, and Dyad Medical, outside the submitted work. Dr Watanabe has received honoraria for lectures from Abbott Medical Japan, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Kowa, outside the submitted work. Dr Zhu has received grants from AstraZeneca and Chugaipharma; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, Medtronic, and Chugaipharma, outside the submitted work; and has received nonfinancial support from Medtronic. Dr Vranckx has received consulting fees or honoraria from Bayer AG, Daiichi-Sankyo, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Menarini, and CSL Behring; has participated data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Novartis; and his institution has received research grants from Daiichi-Sankyo and Medtronic. Dr Serruys has received personal fees from SMT, Philips, Xeltis, Novartis, and Merillife, outside the submitted work. Dr Dangas has received grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Bayer, outside the submitted work; and has received personal fees from Biosensors and Boston Scientific. Dr McFadden has received personal fees from Cardialysis BV, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, outside the submitted work. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation, outside the submitted work. Dr Valgimigli has received grants from Terumo; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Terumo, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFlow, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals LTD, Universität Basel, Department. Klinische Forschung, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, Medscape, Biotronik, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The risk of bleeding as predicted by the PRECISE-DAPT score can vary over time after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to compare the predictive ability of the PRECISE-DAPT score calculated at baseline and reassessed during follow-up in male and female patients undergoing PCI. The RE-SCORE was a multicenter, prospective registry including patients undergoing PCI treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 1 year. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding. The PRECISE-DAPT score was determined for each patient at the time of PCI and at 1, 4 and 8-month follow-up visits or before the occurrence of an endpoint event. A total of 480 patients undergoing PCI were included. At baseline, median PRECISE-DAPT score was similar in males (23.2 [IQR 20.1-24.2]) and females (23.4 [IQR 20.2-25.3]; p = .22). During follow-up, an increase in the PRECISE-DAPT occurred significantly more often in females (44%) than in males (23%; p < .001). The discrimination of the PRECISE-DAPT score calculated at baseline was marginal in both males (c-index = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.51-0.65) and females (c-index = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49-0.60). The discriminative ability of the score reassessed at follow-up was excellent in females (c-index = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.91) but remained modest in males (c-index = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.55-0.70). The bleeding predictive ability of the PRECISE-DAPT score can vary over time, more commonly in females than males. The discrimination of the score calculated during follow-up appeared improved in females but remained modest in males. Clinical Trial Registration - ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03526614.

Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) strategy in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome remains debated. We sought to investigate the use of clopidogrel versus ticagrelor in HBR patients with acute coronary syndrome and their impact on ischemic and bleeding events at 1 year. In the START-ANTIPLATELET registry (NCT02219984), consecutive patients with ≥ 1 HBR criteria were stratified by DAPT type in clopidogrel versus ticagrelor groups. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical endpoints (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. Of 1209 patients with 1-year follow-up, 553 were defined at HBR, of whom 383 were considered eligible for the study as on DAPT with clopidogrel (174 or 45.4%) or ticagrelor (209 or 54.6%). Clopidogrel was more often administered in patients at increased ischemic and bleeding risk, while ticagrelor in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Mean DAPT duration was longer in the ticagrelor group. At 1 year, after multivariate adjustment, no difference in NACEs was observed between patients on clopidogrel versus ticagrelor (19% vs. 11%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.27 [95% CI 0.71-2.27], p = 0.429). Age, number of HBR criteria, and mean DAPT duration were independent predictors of NACEs. In a real-world registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome, 45% were at HBR and frequently treated with clopidogrel. After adjustment for potential confounders, the duration of DAPT, but not DAPT type (stratified by clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor), was associated with the risk of ischemic and bleeding events at 1 year.

Prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after 12 months in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) is attractive to reduce long-term ischemic complications. In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54, the use of low-dose ticagrelor (60 mg b.i.d.) plus aspirin after 12 months from MI reduced the risk of ischemic events, at the price of limited increase on bleeding complications. However, data on the use of low-dose ticagrelor in real-world practice lack. We aim at providing data on prescription/eligibility criteria and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose ticagrelor in the real-world setting. We enrolled consecutive patients eligible for ticagrelor 60 mg according to Italian national regulation in 3 high-volume centers and collected 1-year outcomes. The primary objective of the study is to generate real-world data about clinical characteristics, eligibility criteria, major adverse cardiovascular events, bleeding, and adverse event in patients receiving low-dose ticagrelor from our cohort. One hundred eighty-one patients were consecutively enrolled with a median follow-up of 18 months. The most used and the least used prescription criteria were multivessel coronary disease (72.4%) and chronic kidney disease (15.5%), respectively. At 1-year follow-up, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 4.97%; of these, 3.86% of patients had a MI, and 1.1% had a stroke/transient ischemic attack, whereas no major bleeding occurred. In conclusion, in a real-world study, including patients with previous MI, low-dose ticagrelor for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy showed to be effective and safe, with no major bleeding occurring at follow-up.

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor is recommended for at least 12 months in patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, its underuse and premature discontinuation are common in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the impact of a dedicated follow-up strategy with clinical visits and counselling on adherence levels to ticagrelor in patients after ACS., Methods: PROGRESS (PROmotinG dual antiplatelet therapy adheREnce in the setting of acute coronary Syndromes) is a prospective, randomized trial enrolling 400 ACS patients treated with ticagrelor. Patients were randomized to be followed-up in a dedicated outpatient clinic (In-person follow-up group, [IN-FU], n=200), or with scheduled for phone interviews only (Telephone follow-up group [TEL-FU], n=200), to assess ticagrelor adherence and related complications. DAPT disruption was defined as an interruption of the administration of the drug due to complications or other reasons of non-adherence, and divided according to the duration into short (1-5 days), temporary (6-30 days) and permanent (≥30 days) disruption. The primary endpoint was the rate of DAPT disruption at 1-year follow-up., Results: The rate of ticagrelor disruption at 1 year follow-up was higher in the TEL-FU group than in the IN-FU group (19.6 vs 5.5%; p<0.0001). The IN-FU group reported a significantly lower rate of short (3.0 vs 8.5%; p=0.012) and permanent (2.0 vs 9.6%; p=0.012) disruption than TEL-FU group. The rate of major bleeding did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (p=0.450)., Conclusion: The PROGRESS trial showed a net reduction in DAPT disruption in patients followed-up with clinical (in-person) follow-up visits in a dedicated outpatient clinic compared with those scheduled for phone interviews only., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

The protective effect of obesity on mortality in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients remains debated. We aimed at evaluating the impact of obesity on ischemic and bleeding events as possible explanations to the obesity paradox in ACS patients. For the purpose of this substudy, patients enrolled in the START-ANTIPLATELET registry were stratified according to body mass index (BMI) into 3 groups: normal, BMI <25 kg/m 2 ; overweight, BMI: 25 to 29.9 kg/m 2 ; obese, BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 . The primary end point was net adverse clinical end points (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. In n = 1,209 patients, n = 410 (33.9%) were normal, n = 538 (44.5%) were overweight and n = 261 (21.6%) were obese. Compared to the normal weight group, obese and overweight patients had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors but were younger, with a better left ventricular ejection fraction and lower PRECISE-DAPT score. At 1-year follow-up net adverse clinical endpoints was more frequently observed in normal than in overweight and obese patients (15.1%, 8.6%, and9.6%, respectively; p = 0.004), driven by a significantly higher rate of all-cause death (6.3%, 2.6%, and 3.8%, respectively; p = 0.008), whereas no significant differences were noted in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding. When correcting for confounding variables, BMI loses its power in independently predicting outcomes, failing to confirm the obesity paradox in a real-world ACS population. In conclusion, our study conflicts the obesity paradox in real-world ACS population, and suggest that the reduced rate of adverse events and mortality in obese patients may be explained by relevant differences in the clinical risk profile and medications rather than BMI per se., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The epidemiology and management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) have evolved. We aimed to describe recent demographics and therapeutic changes in the Italian ACS population. We analyzed data from 2 multicenter consecutive Italian registries (the EYESHOT [EmploYEd antithrombotic therapies in patients with acute coronary Syndromes HOspitalised in iTalian cardiac care units] and START-ANTIPLATELET registries) enrolling patients with ACS between December 2013 and June 2016. An overall population of 3756 patients with ACS was enrolled: 2585 in the EYESHOT and 1171 in the START-ANTIPLATELET. Compared with the EYESHOT, patients in the START-ANTIPLATELET registry presented more frequently with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and were more often smokers and dyslipidemic (all P < .001) and had atrial fibrillation ( P = .018) but were less frequently aged ≥75 years and with a history of major bleeding (all P < .001). Analysis of treatment strategy showed a significant increase in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention, drug-eluting stents, dual antiplatelet therapy, and ticagrelor in the START-ANTIPLATELET (all P < .001), with a substantial decline in the proportion of patients conservatively managed and on clopidogrel at discharge ( P < .001). A lower rate of in-hospital events was recorded in the START-ANTIPLATELET compared with the EYESHOT. The START-ANTIPLATELET and EYESHOT registries provide consecutive snapshots in the contemporary management of patients with ACS in Italy, showing important changes in both demographic characteristics and treatment strategies.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. This study compared P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y 12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y 12 inhibitors. Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y 12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is a cornerstone in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Current international guidelines recommend the use of 12 months of DAPT with newer P2Y12 inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) as first-line therapy in this setting. However, intense and prolonged DAPT regimens are associated with an increased risk of bleeding, with relevant prognostic implications. Recently, a strategy of de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibitors has been proposed as an alternative to conventional DAPT to mitigate the risk of bleeding while preserving ischemic protection after ACS. In this review, we summarize the available evidence on guided and unguided strategies for P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. Among patients with ACS, guided and unguided de-escalation strategies are safe and effective for secondary cardiovascular prevention. Although the implementation of genetic and platelet function tests is of interest for treatment personalization, the routine use of guided de-escalation strategies seems impractical. In this context, unguided de-escalation approaches appear more attractive, convenient, and suitable for contemporary practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the gold standard for the antithrombotic management of patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Implementation of intensified or prolonged DAPT regimens has proven to lower the risk of ischemic events but at the expense of increased bleeding. Importantly, bleeding is a predictor of poor prognosis. Risk stratification and selection of tailored antiplatelet strategies to maximize the net clinical benefit in individual patients with ACS or undergoing PCI is therefore potentially beneficial. Recently, novel approaches including DAPT de-escalation or escalation have been proposed as possible alternatives to standard DAPT. These strategies, which are generally based on patient's risk profile, genetics, and/or platelet function have been proposed to offer more tailored treatments in patients with ACS or PCI, with the ultimate goal of providing adequate ischemic protection while mitigating the risk of bleeding. This review summarizes the available evidence on DAPT de-escalation or escalation (both guided and unguided) and discusses the practical implications of these strategies in the contemporary management of patients with ACS and/or undergoing PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces the risk of ischemic events but reduces the risk of ischemic events but increases the risk of bleeding, which in turn is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. With the aim to offer personalized treatment regimens to patients undergoing PCI, much effort has been devoted in the last decade to improve the identification of patients at increased risk of bleeding complications. Several clinical scores have been developed and validated in large populations of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and are currently recommended by guidelines to evaluate bleeding risk and individualize the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy after PCI. In clinical practice, these risk scores are conventionally computed at the time of PCI using baseline features and risk factors. Yet, bleeding risk is dynamic and can change over time after PCI, since patients can worsen or improve their clinical status and accumulate comorbidities. Indeed, evidence now exists that the estimated risk of bleeding after PCI can change over time. This concept is relevant, as the inappropriate estimation of bleeding risk, either at the time of revascularization or subsequent follow-up visits, might lead to erroneous therapeutic management. Serial evaluation and recalculation of bleeding risk scores during follow-up can be important in clinical practice to improve the identification of patients at higher risk of bleeding while on DAPT after PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To analyze the prevalence and clinical implications of the eligibility criteria for prolonged dual antithrombotic therapy with ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily and/or rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily in a contemporary real-world ACS registry. Patients from the START-ANTIPLATELET registry (NCT02219984) were stratified according to the eligibility criteria of the PEGASUS and COMPASS studies to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for prolonged dual antithrombotic therapy at discharge and after 1-year of DAPT. Net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding, at 1 year were also evaluated and compared among groups. 1844 were considered for the analysis at baseline. Out of 849 event-free patients continually receiving dual antiplatelet therapy for at least 1 year, 577 (68%) and 583 (68.7%) met at least one eligibility criterion for ticagrelor and rivaroxaban, respectively. In the PEGASUS-like patients, age was the most common criterion (71% of cases). The presence ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors was the most common eligibility criterion in the COMPASS-like patients (80.8%). At 1-year follow-up, 211 (11.4%) and 119 (6.5%) patients experienced NACE and MACE, respectively. The incidence of NACEs was higher in the PEGASUS-only group (15.4% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.008) and numerically higher in the COMPASS-only group (10.9% vs. 8.4%; p = 0.299). In a contemporary real-world ACS cohort, approximately two-thirds of patients that complete 1-year DAPT met the eligibility criteria for ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily, showing a higher risk of NACEs. [Display omitted] • In a real-world ACS cohort, two-thirds of patients met the eligibility criteria for prolonged DAT after 1-yr follow-up. • In the PEGASUS-like patients, age (71%) was the most common criterion for eligibility to ticagrelor 60 mg bid. • In the COMPASS-like patients, the presence of at least 2 risk factors represented the most common criterion for eligibility. • The group of patients identified by PEGASUS criteria showed a higher risk of NACE than non-eligible patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan–Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31–92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329−365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan–Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan–Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78–1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan–Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34–0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan–Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59–0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]