Search

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of ticagrelor monotherapy in the very high risk cohort of patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and aspirin post-PCI, event-free patients were randomized to either aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor for 12 months. Those with available information on DM and CKD status were included in this subanalysis and were stratified by the presence or absence of either condition: 3391 (54.1%) had neither DM nor CKD (DM-/CKD-), 1822 (29.0%) had DM only (DM+/CKD-), 561 (8.9%) had CKD only (DM-/CKD+), and 8.0% had both DM and CKD (DM+/CKD+). The incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding did not differ according to DM/CKD status (P-trend = 0.13), but there was a significant increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (P-trend < 0.001) as well as the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (P-trend < 0.001). Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin across all four groups, including DM+/CKD+ patients with respect to BARC 2-5 [4.5% vs. 8.7%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-1.01] as well as BARC 3-5 (0.8% vs. 5.3%; HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.53) bleeding, with no evidence of heterogeneity. The risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar between treatment arms across all groups., Conclusion: Irrespective of the presence of DM, CKD, and their combination, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of age on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: As the risk for bleeding and ischemic complications after PCI increases with age, the authors conducted a pre-specified analysis of the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial to evaluate the possible benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy according to age., Methods: The TWILIGHT trial enrolled patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents who fulfilled at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk criterion. Age ≥65 years was a clinical entry criterion. After 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, event-free patients were randomized to ticagrelor plus placebo or ticagrelor plus aspirin for an additional 12 months. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Results: A total of 3,113 patients (47.7%) were ≥65 years of age. At 1 year after randomization, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.5% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 0.71) without increasing ischemic events (4.2% vs. 4.4%; hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.35) compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin among patients ≥65 years of age. These findings were consistent in patients <65 years of age with respect to the primary (p interaction  = 0.62) and key secondary (p interaction  = 0.77) endpoints and across different age categories., Conclusions: A strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy following 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin without an increase in ischemic events, irrespective of age., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by an investigator-initiated grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has participated in review activities for CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; has received institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Baber has received speaking honoraria from AstraZeneca and Boston Scientific. Dr. Dangas has received consulting fees and advisory board fees from AstraZeneca; has received consulting fees from Biosensors; and previously held stock in Medtronic. Dr. Mehta has received grant support from and serving on an executive committee and as site investigator for AstraZeneca. Dr. Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora; has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Svelte, Corvia, and Ancora. Dr. Krucoff has received consulting fees or honoraria and research grants from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, CeloNova, Medtronic, and OrbusNeich. Dr. Gibson has received research grant support from AstraZeneca. Dr. Moliterno has received grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Gibson has received grant support and consulting fees from Angel Medical, Bayer, CSL Behring, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Portola Pharmaceuticals; has received consulting fees from The Medicines Company, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Novo Nordisk, WebMD, UpToDate Cardiovascular Medicine, Amarin Pharma, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck, PharmaMar, Sanofi, Somahlution, Verreseon, Boston Scientific, Impact Bio, MedImmume, Medtelligence, MicroPort, PERT Consortium, and GE Healthcare; holds equity in nference; serves as chief executive officer of the Baim Institute; and has received grant support, paid to the Baim Institute, from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Huber has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Weisz has received grant support and advisory board fees from and holds equity in Corindus; has received advisory board fees from and holds equity in Filterlex; serves on an advisory board for and holds options in Trisol; and has received grant support from Abbott, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, and RenalGuard. Dr. Oldroyd has received grant support and lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Escaned has received consulting and lecture fees from Abbott, Philips, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and has received lecture fees from Abiomed, Terumo, and Biosensors. Dr. Sharma has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. Dr. Mehran reports grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco dba PLx Pharma, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs), and Janssen Scientific Affairs; has received other compensation from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Bristol Myers Squibb, Claret Medical, Elixir Medical, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano, and Watermark Research Partners; and has received nonfinancial support and other compensation from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y 12 inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all randomised trials comparing P2Y 12 inhibitor with aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease were evaluated for inclusion. On Dec 18, 2019, we searched PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we reviewed references from identified articles and searched abstracts from 2017 to 2019 presented at relevant scientific meetings. Data about year of publication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, baseline patients' features including the baseline condition determining study inclusion (ie, cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease), P2Y 12 inhibitor type and dosage, aspirin dosage, endpoint definitions, effect estimates, follow-up duration, and percentage of patients lost to follow-up were collected. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were used as metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Co-primary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death and vascular death. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 index. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115037)., Findings: A total of nine randomised trials were identified and included in this study, and 42 108 patients randomly allocated to a P2Y 12 inhibitor (n=21 043) or aspirin (n=21 065) were included in our analyses. Patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor had a borderline reduction for the risk of myocardial infarction compared with those who received aspirin (OR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-0·99]; I 2 =10·9%). Risks of stroke (OR 0·93 [0·82-1·06]; I 2 =34·5%), all-cause death (OR 0·98 [0·89-1·08]; I 2 =0%), and vascular death (OR 0·97 [0·86-1·09]; I 2 =0%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. Similarly, the risk of major bleeding (OR 0·90 [0·74-1·10]; I 2 =3·9%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y 12 inhibitor and those who received aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent one myocardial infarction with P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy was 244 patients. Findings were consistent regardless of the type of P2Y 12 inhibitor used., Interpretation: Compared with aspirin monotherapy, P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a risk reduction for myocardial infarction and a comparable risk of stroke in the setting of secondary prevention. The benefit of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy is of debatable clinical relevance, in view of the high number needed to treat to prevent a myocardial infarction and the absence of any effect on all-cause and vascular mortality., Funding: Italian Ministry of Education., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories. The aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial. The TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m2], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m2], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol. Among 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI. Among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention. Patients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated. In this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization. A total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P interaction = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P interaction = 0.52). Ticagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) represent a prevalent subgroup among those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Early aspirin discontinuation after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has emerged as a bleeding avoidance strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month DAPT in a contemporary HBR population. Methods and results This prespecified analysis of the TWILIGHT trial evaluated the treatment effects of early aspirin withdrawal followed by ticagrelor monotherapy in HBR patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. After 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomized to 12 months of aspirin or placebo in addition to ticagrelor. A total of 1064 (17.2%) met the Academic Research Consortium definition for HBR. Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in HBR (6.3% vs. 11.4%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.82) and non-HBR patients (3.5% vs. 5.9%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.77) with similar relative (P interaction = 0.67) but a trend towards greater absolute risk reduction in the former [−5.1% vs. −2.3%; difference in absolute risk differences (ARDs) −2.8%, 95% CI −6.4% to 0.8%, P  = 0.130]. A similar pattern was observed for more severe BARC 3 or 5 bleeding with a larger absolute risk reduction in HBR patients (−3.5% vs. −0.5%; difference in ARDs −3.0%, 95% CI −5.2% to −0.8%, P  = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the key secondary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between treatment arms, irrespective of HBR status. Conclusions Among HBR patients undergoing PCI who completed 3-month DAPT without experiencing major adverse events, aspirin discontinuation followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced bleeding without increasing ischaemic events, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. The absolute risk reduction in major bleeding was larger in HBR than non-HBR patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The aim of this study was to assess the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor monotherapy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results In this prespecified subanalysis of the TWILIGHT trial, we evaluated the treatment effects of ticagrelor with or without aspirin according to renal function. The trial enrolled patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation who fulfilled at least one clinical and one angiographic high-risk criterion. Chronic kidney disease, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, was a clinical study entry criterion. Following a 3-month period of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free patients were randomly assigned to aspirin or placebo on top of ticagrelor for an additional 12 months. Of the 6835 patients randomized and with available eGFR at baseline, 1111 (16.3%) had CKD. Ticagrelor plus placebo reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in both patients with [4.6% vs. 9.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31–0.80] and without (4.0% vs. 6.7%; HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47–0.75; P interaction = 0.508) CKD, but the absolute risk reduction was greater in the former group. Rates of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between the two randomized groups irrespective of the presence (7.9% vs. 5.7%; HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.88–2.22) or absence of (3.2% vs. 3.6%; HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68–1.20; P interaction = 0.111) CKD. Conclusion Among CKD patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of bleeding without a significant increase in ischaemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) may be associated with better outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to other current-generation limus-eluting stents (LES). To compare BP-BES with other current-generation LES in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We pooled individual data of Non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE)-ACS patients from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). The BP-BES groups consisted mostly of GLASSY patients, while the control group (other current-generation LES) included exclusively TWILIGHT patients. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis; the key secondary outcome was target-vessel failure (TVF). To account for trial design differences, outcomes were assessed at 3 months (short-term) and between 3 and 12 months (long-term) after PCI and subsequently pooled to estimate the 12-month hazards. Of 7107 and 6053 NSTE-ACS patients included in the short- and long-term analysis, 32.7% and 36.5% received a BP-BES, respectively. Risk of MACE associated with BP-BES versus other LES was similar at short-term (1.1% vs 1.3%, adjusted HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.53–1.38), lower at long-term (1.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted HR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34–0.72), and lower in the entire 12-month period (pooled adjusted HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.45–0.82). The cumulative 12-month risk of TVF was reduced with BP-BES (adjusted HR 0.52, 95%CI 0.38–0.70). BP-BES was associated with lower 12-month risks of MACE and TVF compared to other current generation LES among NSTE-ACS patients treated with abbreviated or standard ticagrelor-based DAPT. These non-randomized findings are hypothesis-generating. Differences in clinical outcomes may exist between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and other current-generation limus-eluting stent (LES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We pooled individual data of about 7000 Non-ST-segment elevation ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with ticagrelor with or without aspirin from two large randomized controlled trials (GLASSY and TWILIGHT). BP-BES patients derived very largely from GLASSY and other LES patients from TWILIGHT. In this population, BP-BES compared to other current generation LES, were associated with a lower 12-month risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and target-vessel failure. • This analysis included >7000 ACS patients undergoing PCI from two RCTs • Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) were compared to other limus-eluting stent (LES) • BES were associated with fewer myocardial infarction than other LES at 1-year • BES were associated with fewer repeated revascularization than other LES at 1-year • Further randomized data are needed to confirm these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor coupled with aspirin for 1 year is the recommended treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As an alternative, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials that included patients with ACS undergoing PCI treated with an initial 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor monotherapy versus continued ticagrelor plus aspirin. Patients sustaining a major ischemic or bleeding event in the first 3 months after PCI were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurring between 3 and 12 months after index PCI. The key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression with a one-stage approach in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The pooled cohort (n=7529) had a mean age of 62.8 years, 23.2% were female, and 55% presented with biomarker-positive ACS. Between 3 and 12 months, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (0.8% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.24–0.56]; P <0.001). Rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between groups (2.4% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68–1.21]; P =0.515). Findings were unchanged among patients presenting with biomarker-positive ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have completed a 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy, discontinuation of aspirin followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced major bleeding without incremental ischemic risk compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42023449646. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention), among high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), ticagrelor monotherapy vs continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor after completing a 3-month course of DAPT was associated with reduced bleeding, without an increase in ischemic events. This investigation sought to study the clinical benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy vs DAPT by simultaneously modeling its associated potential bleeding benefits and ischemic harms on an individual patient basis. Multivariable Cox regression models for: 1) Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 (BARC-2/3/5); and 2) cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal ischemic stroke (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event [MACCE]) were developed using stepwise forward variable selection. The coefficients in the BARC-2/3/5 and MACCE models were used to calculate bleeding and ischemic risk scores, respectively, for each patient (excluding the coefficient for randomized treatment). In the total study group (N = 7,119), BARC-2/3/5 occurred in 391 (5.5%) patients, and MACCE occurred in 258 (3.6%). There was a consistent reduction in bleeding events associated with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT across both bleeding and ischemic risk strata (P interaction = 0.54 and 0.11, respectively). Importantly, this benefit associated with ticagrelor monotherapy was not offset by an increase in MACCE at any level of bleeding or ischemic risk. Three months after PCI, discontinuing aspirin and maintaining ticagrelor monotherapy reduces bleeding in both higher–bleeding risk and lower–bleeding risk patients compared with continued DAPT. This benefit does not appear to be offset by greater ischemic risk. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A PRESPECIFIED TWILIGHT SUBSTUDY. TICAGRELOR MONOTHERAPY AFTER PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION IN HIGH-RISK PATIENTS WITH OR WITHOUT HISTORY OF MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION. [Extracted from the article]