Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.

METHODS

Randomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, and OrbusNeich; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medscape, Siemens Medical Solutions, Roivant Sciences, and Sanofi; is a consultant (no fees) for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; has received institutional consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Spectranetics/Phillips/Volcano Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Watermark Research; is an executive committee member for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; and owns <1% equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical. Dr James has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi-Sankyo. 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 received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St Jude Medical; and has received institutional research 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 Capodanno has received consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi (outside the present work). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.