De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAPT strategies were included and arms of interest were compared via NMA. Partial ranking of each identified arm and for each investigated endpoint was also performed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search covered several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Science) from inception to 15 October 2023. Medical subject headings and keywords related to ACS, PCI and DAPT interventions were used. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Clinical trials registers were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials. INTERVENTIONS: Six strategies were assessed: T1 arm: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and prasugrel for 12 months; T2 arm: ASA and low-dose prasugrel for 12 months; T3 arm: ASA and ticagrelor for 12 months; T4 arm: DAPT de-escalation (ASA+P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-3 months, then single antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y12 inhibitor or DAPT with clopidogrel); T5 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 12 months; T6 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 3-6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: 23 RCTs (75 064 patients with ACS) were included. No differences in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death, recurrent MI or MACE were found when the six strategies were compared, although with different levels of certainty of evidence. ASA and clopidogrel for 12 or 3-6 months may result in a large increase of ST risk versus ASA plus full-dose prasugrel (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, and OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.26, respectively; low certainty evidence for both comparisons). DAPT de-escalation probably results in a reduced risk of all bleedings compared with ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, moderate-certainty evidence) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75), while it may not increase the risk of ST. ASA plus 12-month clopidogrel may reduce all bleedings versus ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94, low certainty) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: DAPT de-escalation and ASA-clopidogrel regimens may reduce bleeding events compared with 12 months ASA and potent P2Y12 inhibitors. 3-6 months or 12-month aspirin-clopidogrel may increase ST risk compared with 12-month aspirin plus potent P2Y12 inhibitors, while DAPT de-escalation probably does not.

Coronary Plaque Characteristics Associated With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Atherosclerotic Patients and Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value of high-risk coronary plaque characteristics (CPCs) to inform intensified medical therapy or revascularization of non-flow-limiting lesions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the prognostic impact of CPCs on patient-level and lesion-level major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). METHODS: Thirty studies (21 retrospective, 9 prospective) with 30,369 patients evaluating the association of CPCs with MACE were included. CPCs included high plaque burden, low minimal lumen area, thin cap fibroatheroma, high lipid core burden index, low-attenuation plaque, spotty calcification, napkin ring sign, and positive remodeling. RESULTS: CPCs were evaluated with the use of intracoronary modalities in 9 studies (optical coherence tomography in 4 studies, intravascular ultrasound imaging in 3 studies, and near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging in 2 studies) and by means of coronary computed tomographic angiography in 21 studies. CPCs significantly predicted patient-level and lesion-level MACE in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. For most CPCs, accuracy for MACE was modest to good at the patient level and moderate to good at the lesion level. Plaques with more than 1 CPC had the highest accuracy for lesion-level MACE (AUC: 0.87). Because the prevalence of CPCs among plaques was low, estimated positive predictive values for lesion-level MACE were modest. Results were mostly consistent across imaging modalities and clinical presentations, and in studies with prevailing hard outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Characterization of CPCs identifies high-risk atherosclerotic plaques that place lesions and patients at risk for future MACE, albeit with modest sensitivity and positive predictive value (Coronary Plaque Characteristics Associated With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Atherosclerotic Patients and Lesions; CRD42021251810).

Reduced Mortality With Antiplatelet Therapy Deescalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy deescalation has been suggested as an alternative to standard treatment with potent dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 1 year in low bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to mitigate the increased risk of bleeding. Whether this strategy preserves the ischemic and survival benefits of potent DAPT is uncertain. METHODS: We performed a pairwise meta-analysis in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention treated with either 1-year standard potent DAPT versus deescalation therapy (potent DAPT for 1-3 months followed by either reduced potency DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy for up to 1 year). Randomized trials comparing standard DAPT versus deescalation therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings. The primary end point was 1-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 6 trials in which 20 837 patients were randomized to potent DAPT for 1 to 3 months followed by deescalation therapy for up to 1 year (n=10 392) or standard potent DAPT for 1 year (n=10 445). Deescalation therapy was associated with lower 1-year rates of all-cause mortality compared with standard therapy (odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]; P=0.02). Deescalation therapy was also associated with lower rates of major bleeding (odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48-0.72]; P<0.0001), with no significant difference in major adverse cardiac events (major adverse cardiovascular events; odds ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.77-1.04]; P=0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In low bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with 1-year of potent DAPT, antiplatelet therapy deescalation therapy after 1 to 3 months was associated with decreased mortality and major bleeding with similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events.

Risk-Benefit of 1-Year DAPT After DES Implantation in Patients Stratified by Bleeding and Ischemic Risk.

BACKGROUND: Although a 1-year duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in many patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the evidence supporting this duration is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated the risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT after DES using 2 novel scores to risk stratify bleeding and ischemic events. METHODS: Ischemic and bleeding risk scores were generated from ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents), a multicenter, international, "all-comers" registry that enrolled 8,665 patients treated with DES. The risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT was then investigated across risk strata from an individual patient data pooled dataset of 7 randomized trials that enrolled 15,083 patients treated with DES. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the ischemic score and the bleeding score had c-indexes of 0.76 and 0.66, respectively, and both were well calibrated. In the pooled dataset, no significant difference was apparent in any ischemic endpoint between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT, regardless of the risk strata. In the overall dataset, there was no significant difference in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT; however, among 2,508 patients at increased risk of bleeding, 1-year compared with ≤6-month DAPT was associated with greater bleeding (HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.12-7.13) without a reduced risk of ischemic events in any risk strata, including those with acute coronary syndromes. These results were consistent in a network meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In the present large-scale study, compared with ≤6-month DAPT, a 1-year duration of DAPT was not associated with reduced adverse ischemic events in any risk strata (including acute coronary syndromes) but was associated with greater bleeding in patients at increased risk of bleeding.

Risk-Benefit of 1-Year DAPT After DES Implantation in Patients Stratified by Bleeding and Ischemic Risk

BACKGROUND: Although a 1-year duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in many patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, the evidence supporting this duration is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated the risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT after DES using 2 novel scores to risk stratify bleeding and ischemic events. METHODS: Ischemic and bleeding risk scores were generated from ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents), a multicenter, international, "all-comers" registry that enrolled 8,665 patients treated with DES. The risk-benefit profile of 1-year vs ≤6-month DAPT was then investigated across risk strata from an individual patient data pooled dataset of 7 randomized trials that enrolled 15,083 patients treated with DES. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the ischemic score and the bleeding score had c-indexes of 0.76 and 0.66, respectively, and both were well calibrated. In the pooled dataset, no significant difference was apparent in any ischemic endpoint between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT, regardless of the risk strata. In the overall dataset, there was no significant difference in the risk of clinically relevant bleeding between 1-year and ≤6-month DAPT; however, among 2,508 patients at increased risk of bleeding, 1-year compared with ≤6-month DAPT was associated with greater bleeding (HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.12-7.13) without a reduced risk of ischemic events in any risk strata, including those with acute coronary syndromes. These results were consistent in a network meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In the present large-scale study, compared with ≤6-month DAPT, a 1-year duration of DAPT was not associated with reduced adverse ischemic events in any risk strata (including acute coronary syndromes) but was associated with greater bleeding in patients at increased risk of bleeding.