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.

[The clinical value of bleeding risk stratification]. / Bloedingsrisicoscores: waarde voor de klinische praktijk.

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.