Is the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) excessive in post-angioplasty in chronic coronary syndrome? Data from the France-PCI registry (2014-2019).

bleeding risk chronic coronary syndrome coronary angioplasty dual antiplatelet therapy ischemic risk

Journal

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 23 11 2022
accepted: 06 03 2023
medline: 11 4 2023
entrez: 10 4 2023
pubmed: 11 4 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

while the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following coronary angioplasty for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) recommended by the European Society of Cardiology has decreased over the last decade, little is known about the adherence to those guidelines in clinical practice in France. To analyze the real duration of DAPT post coronary angioplasty in CCS, as well as the factors affecting this duration. Between 2014 and 2019, 8.836 percutaneous coronary interventions for CCS from the France-PCI registry were evaluated, with 1 year follow up, after exclusion of patients receiving oral anticoagulants, procedures performed within one year of an acute coronary syndrome, and repeat angioplasty. Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) DAPT duration was > 12 months for 53.1% of patients treated for CCS; 30.5% had a DAPT between 7 and 12 months, and 16.4% a DAPT ≤ 6 months. Patients with L-DAPT (>12 months) were at higher ischemic risk [25.0% of DAPT score ≥2 vs. 18.8% DAPT score ≥2 in S&I-DAPT group (≤12 months)]. The most commonly used P2Y12 inhibitor was clopidogrel (82.2%). The prescription of ticagrelor increased over the period. post-PCI DAPT duration in CCS was higher than international recommendations in the France PCI registry between 2014 and 2019. More than half of the angioplasty performed for CCS are followed by a DAPT > 12 months. Ischemic risk assessment influences the duration of DAPT. This risk is probably overestimated nowadays, leading to a prolongation of DAPT beyond the recommended durations, thus increasing the bleeding risk.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
while the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following coronary angioplasty for chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) recommended by the European Society of Cardiology has decreased over the last decade, little is known about the adherence to those guidelines in clinical practice in France.
Aim UNASSIGNED
To analyze the real duration of DAPT post coronary angioplasty in CCS, as well as the factors affecting this duration.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Between 2014 and 2019, 8.836 percutaneous coronary interventions for CCS from the France-PCI registry were evaluated, with 1 year follow up, after exclusion of patients receiving oral anticoagulants, procedures performed within one year of an acute coronary syndrome, and repeat angioplasty.
Results UNASSIGNED
Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) DAPT duration was > 12 months for 53.1% of patients treated for CCS; 30.5% had a DAPT between 7 and 12 months, and 16.4% a DAPT ≤ 6 months. Patients with L-DAPT (>12 months) were at higher ischemic risk [25.0% of DAPT score ≥2 vs. 18.8% DAPT score ≥2 in S&I-DAPT group (≤12 months)]. The most commonly used P2Y12 inhibitor was clopidogrel (82.2%). The prescription of ticagrelor increased over the period.
Conclusions UNASSIGNED
post-PCI DAPT duration in CCS was higher than international recommendations in the France PCI registry between 2014 and 2019. More than half of the angioplasty performed for CCS are followed by a DAPT > 12 months. Ischemic risk assessment influences the duration of DAPT. This risk is probably overestimated nowadays, leading to a prolongation of DAPT beyond the recommended durations, thus increasing the bleeding risk.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37034332
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1106503
pmc: PMC10080068
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1106503

Informations de copyright

© 2023 Mezier, Motreff, Clerc, Bar, Deballon, Demicheli, Dechery, Souteyrand, Py, Lhoest, Lhermusier, Honton, Gommeaux, Jeanneteau, Deharo, Benamer, Cayla, Koning, Pereira, Collet and Rangé.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Circ J. 2020 Nov 25;84(12):2175-2184
pubmed: 33162461
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;300:99-105
pubmed: 31474410
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Mar;97(4):569-578
pubmed: 33111495
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2018 May;66(3):209-216
pubmed: 29685699
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 14;39(3):213-260
pubmed: 28886622
Yonsei Med J. 2020 Jul;61(7):597-605
pubmed: 32608203
Clin Cardiol. 2016 Apr;39(4):192-200
pubmed: 26880570
Lancet. 2013 Nov 23;382(9906):1714-22
pubmed: 24004642
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 9;13(5):634-646
pubmed: 32139222
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021 Sep;14(9):e007963
pubmed: 34517724
TH Open. 2018 Dec 21;2(4):e437-e444
pubmed: 31249972
Lancet. 2020 Nov 28;396(10264):1737-1744
pubmed: 33202219
JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1735-49
pubmed: 27022822
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1069-1078
pubmed: 30158058
Eur Heart J. 2021 Feb 1;42(5):373-498
pubmed: 32860505
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(38):2949-3003
pubmed: 23996286
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477
pubmed: 31504439
Eur Heart J. 2015 May 21;36(20):1252-63
pubmed: 25616646
Circulation. 2012 Jan 24;125(3):505-13
pubmed: 22179532
Coron Artery Dis. 2014 May;25(3):208-14
pubmed: 24419038

Auteurs

A Mezier (A)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

P Motreff (P)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

J M Clerc (JM)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours, Tours, France.

O Bar (O)

Cardiology Department, Nouvelle Clinique Tourangelle, Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire, France.

R Deballon (R)

Cardiology Department, Clinique Oréliance, Orléans, France.

T Demicheli (T)

Cardiology Department, Les Hôpitaux de Chartres, Chartres, France.

T Dechery (T)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Jacques Coeur, Bourges, France.

G Souteyrand (G)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

A Py (A)

Cardiology Department, Clinique de l'Europe, Amiens, France.

N Lhoest (N)

Cardiology Departemnt, Clinique Rhéna, Strasbourg, France.

T Lhermusier (T)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

B Honton (B)

Cardiology Department, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France.

A Gommeaux (A)

Cardiology Department, Hôpital Privé de Bois-Bernard, Bois-Bernard, France.

J Jeanneteau (J)

Cardiology Department, Clinique Saint Joseph, Trelaze, France.

P Deharo (P)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de la Timone, Marseille, France.

H Benamer (H)

Cardiology Department, Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy, France.

G Cayla (G)

Cardiology Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes, Nîmes, France.

R Koning (R)

Cardiology Department, Clinique Saint Hilaire, Rouen, France.

B Pereira (B)

Clinical Research and Innovation Direction, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

J P Collet (JP)

Cardiology Institute, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), Paris, France.

G Rangé (G)

Cardiology Department, Les Hôpitaux de Chartres, Chartres, France.

Classifications MeSH