Bleeding avoidance strategies are critical in the modern era of percutaneous coronary intervention; however, most efforts are geared toward reducing access-related complications. Improvements in procedural techniques (radial access, improved procedural anticoagulation regimens, etc) and modifications in postdischarge pharmacotherapy (shortened dual antiplatelet therapy, genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibition, etc) that led to a decline in bleeding related to percutaneous procedures were largely offset by increases in complexity and performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients. Among patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome, aggressive antiplatelet regimens with potent P2Y12 inhibitors are typically prescribed for a longer duration, prioritizing reduction in ischemic events over bleeding risk. Because postdischarge bleeding connotes an adverse prognosis similar to an ischemic event, postprocedure freedom from adverse outcomes can be best tailored by individualizing and recognizing the patient's bleeding and ischemic risks. This review of the contemporary and historical literature (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) summarizes the available data, provides strategies to navigate these complex decisions, and helps individualize antithrombotic therapy.

De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is gaining traction as a strategy to reduce bleeding risks while ensuring ischemic outcomes. Undiscriminating de-escalation, notably in patients with high ischemic risk, might expose them to major adverse cardiac events. Platelet function and genetic tests are emerging tools to guide de-escalation, but both present specific drawbacks. Recent meta-analyses have aimed to consolidate the findings of individual trials to provide clearer insights. Yet, limitations remain for patients with concomitant high bleeding and ischemic risks. These high-risk patients are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, and, therefore, currently available guidelines lack evidence-based recommendations for this subset. While DAPT de-escalation strategies hold promise, the choice of approach, whether clinically or assay-guided, remains complex and should be individualized.

Optimal duration and choice of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remain controversial.

Digital databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase) were queried to select all randomized controlled trials on a post-percutaneous coronary intervention population with acute coronary syndrome. Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months was compared with 4 major strategies: high-potency, high- to low-potency, low-dose, and short-duration DAPT. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet strategies. This study was the second updated manuscript under the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration (CRD42021286552). Thirty-two randomized controlled trials comprising 103 459 (51 750 experimental, 51 709 control) patients were included. Compared with DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months, high- to low-potency DAPT (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.52-0.92]) and aspirin+prasugrel containing DAPT for 12 months (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98]) had a significantly lower, whereas DAPT for 1 month followed by clopidogrel only (RR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.06-2.39]) had a higher, incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year (median follow-up). Prasugrel (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.09-1.66]) and ticagrelor (RR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.17-1.62]) containing DAPT for 12 months had significantly higher rates, whereas high- to low-potency DAPT (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.63-1.15]) had no significant risk of major bleeding.

Aspirin and ticagrelor for 3 months, followed by aspirin and clopidogrel for the remaining duration, can be considered the optimal strategy for treating post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients with acute coronary syndrome because of a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events without increasing the risk of bleeding.

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).

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.

Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT.

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.

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.

Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality.

bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

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).

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.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is a standard therapy in patients with ischemic vascular diseases (IVD) including coronary artery, cerebrovascular and peripheral arterial diseases, although the optimal duration of this treatment is still debated. Previous meta-analyses reported conflicting results about the effects of long-term and short-term as well as non-DAPT use in various clinical settings. Herein, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of different durations of DAPT.

We reviewed relevant articles and references from database, which were published prior to April 2023. Data from prospective studies were processed using RevMan5.0 software, provided by Cochrane Collaboration and transformed using relevant formulas. The inclusion criteria involved randomization to long-term versus short-term or no DAPT; the endpoints included at least one of total or cardiovascular (CV) mortalities, IVD recurrence, and bleeding.

A total of 34 randomized studies involving 141 455 patients were finally included. In comparison with no or short-term DAPT, long-term DAPT reduced MI and stroke, but did not reduce the total and CV mortalities. Meanwhile, bleeding events were increased, even though intracranial and fatal bleedings were not affected. Besides, the reduction of MI and stroke recurrence showed no statistical significance between long-term and short-term DAPT groups.

Long-term DAPT may not reduce the mortality of IVD besides increasing bleeding events, although reduced the incidences of MI and stroke early recurrence to a certain extent and did not increase the risk of fatal intracranial bleeding.

Identifying the most appropriate antiplatelet therapy for each patient to prevent ischemic events while minimizing the risk of bleeding is an integral part of the short- and long-term management of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the contemporary use of P2Y12 inhibitors in CAD patients, focusing on strategies aimed at providing adequate ischemic protection while preventing bleeding risk through dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) modulation. Randomized trials and observational studies have been reviewed to determine the most appropriate antiplatelet treatment for CAD patients with different risk profiles. Both ischemic and bleeding events have a significant prognostic impact and should be carefully considered in clinical decision-making. Current guidelines recommend the use of third-generation PY2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor) over clopidogrel, as a part of DAPT, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Newer P2Y12 inhibitors have a more rapid onset of action and less interindividual variability in platelet inhibition than clopidogrel but are associated with an increased risk of bleeding that may limit their benefit. Importantly, the anti-ischemic benefit of ticagrelor and prasugrel is mainly observed in the first weeks after ACS, whereas clopidogrel seems to provide the best balance between ischemic protection and bleeding as long-term maintenance therapy. These concepts support DAPT modulation after the acute phase, by de-escalating from full-dose to low-dose newer P2Y12 inhibitors, by switching to clopidogrel, or by early withdrawing aspirin to maximize both the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy in patients with CAD.

Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of antithrombotic prevention in patients with established atherosclerosis, since it has been proven to reduce coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral thrombotic events. However, the protective effect of antiplatelet agents is counterbalanced by an increase of bleeding events that impacts on patients' mortality and morbidity. Over the last years, great efforts have been made toward personalized antithrombotic strategies according to the individual bleeding and ischemic risk profile, aiming to maximizing the net clinical benefit. The development of risk scores, consensus definitions, and the new promising artificial intelligence tools, as well as the assessment of platelet responsiveness using platelet function and genetic testing, are now part of an integrated approach to tailored antithrombotic management. Moreover, novel strategies are available including dual antiplatelet therapy intensity and length modulation in patients undergoing myocardial revascularization, the use of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention, the implementation of parenteral antiplatelet agents in high-ischemic risk clinical settings, and combination of antiplatelet agents with low-dose factor Xa inhibitors (dual pathway inhibition) in patients suffering from polyvascular disease. This review summarizes the currently available evidence and provides an overview of the principal risk-stratification tools and antiplatelet strategies to inform treatment decisions in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)-aspirin in conjunction with a P2Y12 inhibitor-is the cornerstone of managing patients with acute coronary syndromes post-revascularization, but the clinical response is highly variable, with potentially devastating consequences. Herein, we review the mechanisms underpinning said variability and explore emerging approaches to normalizing therapeutic benefit.

The potent P2Y12 inhibitors, prasugrel and ticagrelor, exhibit minimal inter-individual variability, replacing clopidogrel in DAPT and achieving greater rates of therapeutic response. However, these benefits decline in later phases when bleeding risk begins to supersede that of ischemia. Guided de-escalation of P2Y12 inhibition as well as shortening DAPT duration have emerged as strategies that retain antithrombotic efficacy while reducing bleeding risk. Aspirin is the other component of DAPT but is also used in isolation for secondary prevention of thrombotic disease. In contrast to the P2Y12 inhibitors, genetic influences on aspirin non-response appear to be outweighed by a triad of clinical factors: non-adherence, enteric aspirin use, and inappropriate dosing according to bodyweight and BMI. Multiple de-escalation strategies for DAPT have been shown to mitigate bleeding risk, but it remains unclear which approach is ideal, necessitating head-to-head investigations to determine which exhibits the most favorable cost-to-benefit ratio. However, there is likely a role for more than one approach in clinical practice, depending on patient risk profile. Our approach to aspirin use is also in need of reassessment: strategies to improve adherence, avoidance of enteric aspirin in cardiac patients, and dose adjustment according to bodyweight and/or BMI are all likely to improve rates of therapeutic response. Moreover, platelet function testing may have a role in identifying patients expected to benefit from primary prophylactic aspirin.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the gold standard after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Because local and systemic ischemic complications can occur particularly in the early phase (i.e. 1-3 months) after ACS or PCI, the synergistic platelet inhibition of aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is of the utmost importance in this early phase. Moreover, the use of the more potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor have shown to further reduce the incidence of ischemic events compared to clopidogrel after an ACS. On the other hand, prolonged and potent antiplatelet therapy are inevitably associated with increased bleeding, which unlike thrombotic risk, tends to be stable over time and may outweigh the benefit of reducing ischemic events in these patients. The duration and composition of antiplatelet therapy remains a topic of debate in cardiology due to competing ischemic and bleeding risks, with guidelines and recommendations considerably evolving in the past years. An emerging strategy, called "de-escalation", consisting in the administration of a less intense antithrombotic therapy after a short course of standard DAPT, has shown to reduce bleeding without any trade-off in ischemic events. De-escalation may be achieved with different antithrombotic strategies and can be either unguided or guided by platelet function or genetic testing. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence and provide practical recommendations on the use of different de-escalation strategies in patients with ACS and CCS.

This study aimed to determine the status of perioperative antiplatelet therapy in stent-assisted coil embolization (SAC) in Japan.

The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions and used Google forms, and was sent to institutions where endovascular specialists were employed. The results were analyzed.

The responses from 307 centers indicated that the timing of initiation of antiplatelet therapy was 14 days-1 month before treatment in half of centers, and 7-14 days before treatment in the other half. Platelet function tests were performed at 165 centers (56.2%), of which 136 centers (46.3%) performed these tests for all patients, with the VerifyNow system being the most widely used tool. The duration of postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy was 6, 3, and 12 months in 169 (57.7%), 70 (23.5%), and 42 (14.3%) centers, respectively. The antiplatelet agents used for monotherapy were P2Y12 receptor antagonists or aspirin, with a postoperative period of up to 12 months in 139 centers (47.3%), 24 months in 68 centers (23.1%), and longer than 24 months in 50 centers (17%).

Current antiplatelet therapy for SAC in Japan varies widely among institutions. Moreover, each center has its own empirical rules for SAC. Therefore, the findings of this survey suggest the need to establish guidelines for optimal periprocedural antiplatelet therapy for SAC.

There is limited evidence about vessel wall healing response following implantation of next-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients admitted with a non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Cumulative data indicate that optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging can optimize percutaneous coronary intervention results and expedite stent endothelialization in the general population but there is lack of data in NSTE-ACS patients.

The EXPECT study is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized trial to assess early vascular healing response following next-generation DES implantation in patients admitted with NSTE-ACS based on OCT guidance and evaluation. Sixty patients are randomized at 1:1:1 ratio to OCT-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with 3-month follow-up OCT imaging (O3 group, n = 20), to angiography-guided PCI with 3-month follow-up OCT imaging (A3 group, n = 20) and to angiography-guided PCI with 6-month follow-up OCT imaging (A6 group, n = 20). The primary endpoint of the study is stent strut coverage rate at 3- or 6- month follow-up in the studied groups. The secondary endpoints of the study include OCT imaging endpoints, clinical endpoints, and molecular biology endpoints at the different time points. The clinical endpoints comprised of major cardiovascular adverse events and individual components. The molecular biology endpoints comprised of lipid levels and the levels of inflammatory indicators.

The findings of the EXPECT study are anticipated to provide novel insights into vessel wall healing in NSTE-ACS population following implantation of next-generation DES, underscore the value of OCT imaging in expediting strut coverage in this setting, and explore the potential of an early discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in this population.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04375319.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is routinely given to patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting; however, optimal duration remains uncertain in some situations. We assessed the benefits and harms of extending DAPT beyond 1 year after PCI in clinically important patient subgroups.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library) and grey literature (from inception to Nov. 5, 2021) and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of extended DAPT (> 12 mo) compared with DAPT for 6-12 months following PCI with stenting. The primary outcome was death (all cause, cardiovascular, noncardiovascular); secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis and bleeding. Subgroups were based on prespecified patient characteristics (prior MI, acute coronary syndrome [ACS], diabetes mellitus, age, smoking status). Data were analyzed by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis.

We identified 9 RCTs that provided subgroup data. We found that extended DAPT reduced the risk of MI and stent thrombosis but increased the risk of bleeding, compared with standard DAPT, with no difference in the risk of all-cause death (relative risk [RR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.42) or cardiovascular death (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74-1.30). We found that patients with a prior MI, with ACS at presentation, without diabetes or aged younger than 75 years may derive the most benefit from extended DAPT. Among patients who received extended DAPT, the risk of all-cause death was significantly increased among those with no prior MI (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.08-2.24), whereas there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause death between standard and extended DAPT for patients with ACS (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.51-2.83), with diabetes (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.86-1.89), aged older than 75 years (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.39-4.54) or who smoked (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.42-1.92). Similar results were found for cardiovascular death, where data were available.

Patients with a previous MI with ACS at presentation, without diabetes, or aged younger than 75 years may derive the most benefit from extended DAPT. These findings support the need for careful selection of patients who may benefit most from extended DAPT.

PROSPERO no. CRD42018082587.

It is still unknown which antiplatelet monotherapy should be continued after a period of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

The aim of this study was to compare aspirin vs P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-I) monotherapy after dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Randomized studies enrolling patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents and comparing aspirin or P2Y12-I monotherapy after DAPT discontinuation vs prolonged DAPT or aspirin vs P2Y12-I monotherapy after DAPT were included. Primary efficacy and safety endpoints were myocardial infarction (MI) and major bleeding (MB), respectively. Point estimates for dichotomous outcomes were pooled using frequentist and Bayesian frameworks. Sensitivity analyses and treatment hierarchy were performed.

Nineteen studies encompassing 73,126 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was met. Under the frequentist framework, patients receiving aspirin had a significantly higher risk for MI compared with P2Y12-I monotherapy (risk ratio: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.08-1.62). Compared with DAPT, both monotherapies reduced MB, but only P2Y12-I showed equivalent efficacy in preventing MI. No significant differences in MB, death, and other thrombotic outcomes were observed. However, point estimates for the risk for stent thrombosis and stroke favored P2Y12-I monotherapy. Consistent results were found in a fixed-effects model and the Bayesian framework, with all models having adequate convergence. P2Y12-I vs aspirin monotherapy had the highest probability of being ranked first for reduction of all assessed outcomes.

P2Y12-I monotherapy following DAPT discontinuation after PCI is associated with a significantly lower risk for MI and similar risk for MB, suggesting a potentially relevant net clinical benefit vs aspirin monotherapy. These findings strengthen the rationale for further studies directly comparing the 2 monotherapies after DAPT in PCI patients.

The incidence and clinical presentation of ischemic heart disease (IHD), as well as thrombotic and bleeding risks, appear to differ between genders. Compared with men, women feature an increased thrombotic risk, probably related to an increased platelet reactivity, higher level of coagulation factors, and sex-associated unique cardiovascular risk factors, such as pregnancy-related (i.e., pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes), gynecological disorders (i.e., polycystic ovary syndrome, early menopause) and autoimmune or systemic inflammatory diseases. At the same time, women are also at increased risk of bleeding, due to inappropriate dosing of antithrombotic agents, smaller blood vessels, lower body weight and comorbidities, such as diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Pharmacological strategies focused on the personalization of antithrombotic treatment may, therefore, be particularly appealing in women in light of their higher bleeding and ischemic risks. Paradoxically, although women represent a large proportion of cardiovascular patients in our practice, adequate high-quality clinical trial data on women remain scarce and inadequate to guide decision-making processes. As a result, IHD in women tends to be understudied, underdiagnosed and undertreated, a phenomenon known as a "Yentl syndrome." It is, therefore, compelling for the scientific community to embark on dedicated clinical trials to address underrepresentation of women and to acquire evidence-based knowledge in the personalization of antithrombotic therapy in women.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stenting by network meta-analysis (NMA).

PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the comparison of different dual antiplatelet regimens after coronary drug-eluting stenting from inception to September 1st, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk bias of included studies. Stata 16.0 software was used for NMA.

A total of 27 RCTs involving 79,880 patients were included. The results of NMA: in terms of myocardial infarction (MI), other 3 interventions were higher than the long-term dual antiplatelet therapy (L-DAPT) (the standard dual antiplatelet therapy [Std-DAPT] [odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95%confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-2.21), the aspirin monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT + As) (OR = 2.06, 95%CI: 1.57-2.70), the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT + P2Y12) (OR = 1.71, 95%CI: 1.29-2.28)]. In terms of stent thrombosis, other 3 interventions were higher than L-DAPT [Std-DAPT (OR = 2.18, 95%CI: 1.45-3.28), S-DAPT + As (OR = 2.32, 95%CI: 1.52-3.54), S-DAPT + P2Y12 (OR = 2.31, 95%CI: 1.22-4.36)]. There was no statistically significant difference among the 4 interventions in prevention of stroke and all-cause mortality (P > .05). In terms of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events, other 3 interventions were higher than L-DAPT (Std-DAPT [OR = 1.28, 95%CI: 1.12-1.45], S-DAPT + As [OR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.09-1.48], S-DAPT + P2Y12 [OR = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.01-1.52]). In terms of safety, bleeding rate of other 3 interventions were lower than L-DAPT (Std-DAPT [OR = 0.67, 95%CI: 0.52-0.85], S-DAPT + As [OR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.39-0.66], S-DAPT + P2Y12 [OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.26-0.49]). Two interventions were lower than L-DAPT (S-DAPT + As [OR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.65-0.90], S-DAPT + P2Y12 [OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.44-0.66]). S-DAPT + As was higher than L-DAPT (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 1.10-1.83).

S-DAPT + P2Y12 has the lowest bleeding risk, while L-DAPT has the highest bleeding risk. In the outcome of MI, stent thrombosis, and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events, L-DAPT has the best efficacy. In the outcome of stroke and all-cause mortality, the 4 interventions were equally effective.

Assessment of the case-fatality rate (CFR) of major bleeding on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may improve balancing risks and benefits of different durations of DAPT following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

To determine the CFR of major bleeding in patients on DAPT after PCI and to compare rates among different durations of DAPT.

Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to August 2021 for randomized trials that reported fatal bleeding among patients who were randomized to ≥1 month of DAPT following PCI. Summary estimates for CFRs of major bleeding were calculated using the random-effects inverse-variance method. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I 2 statistic.

Of 2777 citations obtained by the search, 15 (48%) of 31 potentially eligible studies were excluded because fatal bleeding was not reported, leaving 16 studies that were included in the analysis. Overall, there were 823 major bleeding events including 91 fatal events in 48,884 patients who were assigned to receive DAPT during study follow-up. The CFR of major bleeding was 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-16.2; I 2 = 50%) in the entire study population, and 13.8% (95% CI, 6.5-27.1; I 2 = 28%), 11.2% (95% CI, 6.7-18.0; I 2 = 0%), and 5.8% (95% CI, 3.0-11.1; I 2 = 0%) in those on short-term (≤6 months; n = 16,553), standard-term (12 months; n = 19,453), and long-term DAPT (>12 months; n = 10,238), respectively.

Fatal bleeding is not reported in many studies evaluating DAPT after PCI. The CFR of major bleeding on DAPT is substantial and may be higher in the first 12 months of DAPT than during long-term DAPT.

The relative safety and efficacy of de-escalation, extended duration (ED) (>12-months), and standard dual antiplatelet therapy for 12-months (DAPT-12) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial.

Online databases were queried to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs). ED-DAPT, high-potency (HP) DAPT, shorter duration (SD) DAPT, and low-dose (LD) DAPT were compared with DAPT-12. A trial sequential, bivariate, influential, and frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to determine the pooled estimates. A total of 30 RCTs comprising 81 208 (40 839 experimental, 40 369 control arm) patients with CAD were included in the quantitative analysis. On NMA, compared with DAPT-12, all types of de-escalation, HP-DAPT-12, and ED-DAPT strategies had a statistically non-significant difference in the incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and all-cause mortality between DAPT-12 and all other strategies. The network estimates showed a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding with DAPT for 3-months followed by P2Y12-inhibitor monotherapy (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.84), while a higher risk of bleeding with HP-DAPT for 12 months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.16-2.06). The net clinical benefit and rankograms also favoured DAPT-3 (P2Y12) and discouraged the use of HP-DAPT-12 and ED-DAPT. A subgroup analysis of 19 RCTs restricted to patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mirrored the findings of pooled analysis. A sensitivity analysis revealed no influence of any individual study or individual strategy on net ischemic estimates. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) illustrated a consistently non-significant difference at the interim analysis of trials, reaching the futility area for MACE, while the cumulative Z-values line surpassed the monitoring boundary as well as the required information size for major bleeding favouring de-escalation strategy.

DAPT for three months followed by ticagrelor-only and use of aspirin + clopidogrel after a short period of high potency DAPT appears to be a safe strategy for treating post-PCI patients. However, given the methodological limitations and inclusion of a small number of trials in novel de-escalation strategies, these findings need validation by future large scale RCTs.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is essential to prevent the risk of ischemia events, but it is difficult to avoid concurrent bleeding events. East Asians are associated with a higher tendency of bleeding than Caucasians, which may affect the DAPT duration. Therefore, this network meta-analysis to explore optimum DAPT duration for East Asians. The related randomized controlled trials that compared the different DAPT duration in East Asian patients were included by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database. The outcomes included myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, all-cause death, stroke, and major bleeding. In addition, net adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events was defined as a composite outcome in this study. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for end point events by the fixed effects model in the Bayesian's network frame. We included a total of 12 randomized controlled trials with 30,640 patients. Compared with 12-month DAPT, 1- to 3-month DAPT is effective in myocardial infarction (OR 0.72, 0.46-1.08), stents thrombosis (OR 1.27, 0.59-2.84), all-cause death (OR 0.91, 0.65-1.28), and stroke (OR 0.89, 0.57-1.39). The 1- to 3-month DAPT was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding compared with 12-month DAPT (OR 0.55, 0.4-0.76), 6-month DAPT (OR 0.54, 0.31-0.94), and >12-month DAPT (OR 0.43, 0.28-0.65). In addition, more than 12 months of DAPT did not reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction (OR 0.75, 0.51-1.11) and increased the risk of major bleeding (OR 1.28, 0.88-1.87) compared with 12-month DAPT. The 1- to 3-month DAPT was more secure and effective than the other 3 DAPT strategies. Although East Asians have a higher risk of bleeding, more than 12 months of DAPT does not increase this incidence of major bleeding.

Objective: To test the optimal strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DESs) according to specific DAPT time and subsequent monotherapy. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six DAPT strategies were compared: 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, 3-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, 3-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy, 6-month DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy, 12-month DAPT, and >12-month DAPT. Pooled odd ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated to summarize the effect of each strategy tested. Results: We identified 24 RCTs containing 81,405 patients. In comparison with 12-month DAPT, 3-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduced net clinical events (OR: 0.72; CrI: 0.55−0.94). Major bleeding (OR: 0.57; CrI: 0.34−1.00) was marginally decreased without impact on ischemic events (OR: 0.93; CrI: 0.68−1.29). Moreover, the benefits of 3-month DAPT (P2Y12 inhibitor) were consistent for male patients with acute coronary disease, young age, complex lesion, single-vessel disease, low body mass index, and without diabetes. Although >12-month DAPT was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; CrI: 0.51−0.93), the risk of major bleeding (OR: 1.70; CrI: 1.10−2.70) was increased. Conclusion: Among patients treated with DESs, 3-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy may be the optimal antiplatelet strategy, while DAPT beyond 1 year reduces myocardial infarction at the expense of increased major bleeding.

Antiplatelet therapy is key to reducing local thrombotic complications and systemic ischaemic events among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but it is inevitably associated with increased bleeding. The continuous refinement in stent technologies, together with the high incidence of ischaemic recurrences after PCI and the understanding of prognostic implications associated with bleeding, have led to a substantial evolution in antiplatelet treatment regimens over the past decades. Numerous investigations have been conducted to better stratify patients undergoing PCI according to their ischaemic and bleeding risks and to implement antithrombotic regimens accordingly. Evidence from these investigations have resulted in a number of antithrombotic treatment options as recommended by recent guidelines. In this State-of-the-Art review we provide the rationale, summarise the evidence, and discuss current and future directions of antiplatelet treatment regimens after PCI.

Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been changing in parallel with the development of drug-eluting stents (DES) and antiplatelet agents. The recommendation of dual antiplatelet therapy duration is getting shorter due to the decreased risk of stent thrombosis in new-generation DES, the use of a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor as a monotherapy, and the increasing prevalence of high bleeding risk patients. Antithrombotic therapy after PCI has also changed due to the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants. Aspirin-free P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is now being evaluated in several prospective studies as a novel strategy of antiplatelet therapy after PCI. This review shows a current status and provides future perspectives for the antiplatelet therapy after PCI.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Because guidelines and recommendations in response to multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of new therapies undergo rapid changes, antithrombotic therapies for patients after acute coronary syndrome, or percutaneous coronary intervention, are becoming more complex in daily clinical practice. The proportion of Asian populations enrolled in landmark RCTs is substantially low, which limits the direct application of trial findings into clinical practice in Asian countries. Moreover, compared with Caucasian patients, East Asian patients are considered to have a different ischemia/bleeding propensity in response to antithrombotic therapy, known as the "East Asian paradox" (ie, more bleeding events but fewer thromboembolic events). Coincident with consecutive RCTs in Western populations to optimize antithrombotic strategies, several such studies have now been conducted in East Asian cohorts. Herein, we provide a comprehensive summary of the key RCTs in this regard and propose future directions and perspectives for optimal antithrombotic therapies in East Asian patients.

For many years, bleeding has been perceived as an unavoidable consequence of strategies aimed at reducing thrombotic complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the paradigm has now shifted towards bleeding being recognized as a prognostically unfavourable event to the same extent as having a new or recurrent ischaemic or thrombotic complication. As such, in parallel with progress in device and drug development for PCI, there is clinical interest in developing strategies that maximize not only the efficacy but also the safety (for example, by minimizing bleeding) of any antithrombotic treatment or procedural aspect before, during or after PCI. In this Review, we discuss contemporary data and aspects of bleeding avoidance strategies in PCI, including risk stratification, timing of revascularization, pretreatment with antiplatelet agents, selection of vascular access, choice of coronary stents and antithrombotic treatment regimens.

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for patients implanted with new-generation drug-eluting stents in East Asians is currently still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of short-term DAPT in patients with those. In this study, randomized controlled trials from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to compare the efficacy and safety of short-term DAPT (6 months or less) with long-term DAPT (12 months or more) in patients implanted with new-generation drug-eluting stents in East Asian from inception to September 2020. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause death, the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite or possible stent thrombosis, and stroke. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials with 15,688 patients met inclusion criteria; there were no significant differences in the incidence of all-cause death [risk ratio (RR), 1.03; 0.76-1.39; P = 0.856)], cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 0.55-1.24; P = 0.361), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.97; 0.72-1.31; P = 0.853), definite or possible stent thrombosis (RR, 1.52; 0.83-2.78; P = 0.170), and stroke (RR, 0.90; 0.61-1.31; P = 0.574) between short-term and long-term DAPTs. However, there was a significant difference in the risk of major bleeding (RR, 0.64; 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002) between the 2 groups. Compared with long-term DAPT, the short-term DAPT can reduce the risk of major bleeding without increasing the risk of death or ischemia for East Asians (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020213266).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is used in patients after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation to prevent stent thrombosis and ischemic events. The ideal duration of DAPT in patients after DES implantation is a topic of debate among clinicians. In the past, many research studies were published related to an optimal duration of DAPT after DES implantation. In common practice, DAPT should be continued for one year or more after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by DES implantation. The duration of DAPT is significant as long-term DAPT has beneficial effects but is associated with side effects like bleeding. On the other hand, short-term DAPT has a lower risk of bleeding, but it increases the rate of stent thrombosis or ischemic events. Our aim in this systematic review is to solve the dispute regarding the duration of DAPT after DES implantation. So, we tried to find the efficacy and safety of short-term (six months) DAPT by compiling data from randomized control trials (RCTs).  We conducted this systematic review following the guidelines defined in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. We searched for our data from multiple databases like PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. We reviewed 10964 studies and then applied inclusion/exclusion criteria and PRISMA guidelines. Finally, we were left with only 21 studies regarding the optimal duration of DAPT after DES implantation. Our systematic review will help determine the non-inferiority of short-term (six months) DAPT to long-term (12 months) DAPT. Furthermore, we also noticed with short-term (six months) DAPT, there was decreased incidence of bleeding as compared to DAPT for long-term. But more studies were required to establish the safety and effectiveness of short-term (six months) DAPT compared to long-term (12 months) DAPT in patients after DES implantation.

Optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been changed in parallel with the improvements of coronary stent and antiplatelet therapy. Over the past 25 years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus P2Y₁₂inhibitor has been the standard of care used after coronary stent implantation. First-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) appeared to increase the risk of late stent thrombosis, and duration of DAPT was prolonged to 12 months. DAPT duration up to 12 months was the dominant strategy after DES implantation in the subsequent >10 years, although there was no dedicated randomized controlled trial supporting this recommendation. The current recommendation of DAPT duration is getting shorter due to the development of new-generation DES, use of a P2Y₁₂inhibitor as a monotherapy, and the increasing prevalence of high-bleeding risk patients. Furthermore, an aspirin-free strategy is now emerging as one of the novel strategies of antiplatelet therapy after PCI. This review gives an overview of the history of antiplatelet therapy and provides current and future perspectives on antiplatelet therapy after PCI.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is prevalent throughout the world, with a significant impact on global health. There is a vast collection of data in the medical literature relating to the topic of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients considered to be at high cardiovascular (CV) risk. In order to perform a narrative review of literature regarding the use of DAPT in patients with high CV risk, PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase were searched for English-language articles from 1985 to December 2020 by using the medical subject heading terms and keywords 'antiplatelet therapy' and 'high-risk cardiovascular disease', alone or in combination. Both authors critically reviewed the design, population characteristics and results of the selected studies. The topic of DAPT in patients with high CV risk is fluid and constantly evolving. The landmark trials of CURE, TRITON-TIMI 38 and PLATO provided evidence for the optimal use of DAPT in patients after acute coronary syndrome, while the CHARISMA and MATCH trials provided guidance for clinicians for their use in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association focused update, published in 2016, and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines, published in 2017, were developed to provide guidance to clinicians based on the available data at the time to be able to choose the appropriate DAPT strategy that would provide patients with the maximum clinical benefit. The management of DAPT in patients with high CV risk is a challenging task, with new data on the subject constantly being reported. Balancing ischaemic benefit with potential bleeding complications adds to the complexity of managing DAPT in these patients. With all the available data and current clinical guidelines, patients deemed at high CV risk should be considered for DAPT, taking into account individual risk:benefit ratio. In most individuals with high CV risk, the net clinical benefit favours the use of DAPT.

Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) can be treated with multiple antithrombotic therapies including antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies; however, this has the potential to increase bleeding risk. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin in patients also receiving anticoagulant therapy.

We evaluated patients from the Atrial Fibrillation and Ischaemic Events with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease (AFIRE) trial who received rivaroxaban plus an antiplatelet agent; the choice of antiplatelet agent was left to the physician's discretion. The primary efficacy and safety end points, consistent with those of the AFIRE trial, were compared between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin groups. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring revascularisation or death from any cause. The primary safety end point was major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

A total of 1075 patients were included (P2Y₁₂ inhibitor group, n=297; aspirin group, n=778). Approximately 60% of patients were administered proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and there was no significant difference in PPI use in the groups. There were no significant differences in the primary end points between the groups (efficacy: HR 1.31; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.94; p=0.178; safety: HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47; p=0.456).

There were no significant differences in cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with AF and stable CAD taking rivaroxaban with P2Y₁₂ inhibitors or aspirin in the chronic phase.

UMIN000016612; NCT02642419.

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is under controversial. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short-term (≤6 months) DAPT vs long-term (≥12 months) DAPT after PCI with a drug-eluting stent (DES).

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared short-term (≤6 months) and long-term (≥12 months) DAPT. The endpoints included major bleeding, any bleeding, death from any cause, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis and target vessel revascularisation. The primary outcome was major bleeding. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each endpoint.

Eighteen trials involving 57,940 patients were included. Compared with long-term DAPT, short-term DAPT resulted in lower rates of major bleeding [RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87, P = .0002] and any bleeding [RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.69, P < .00001]. No significant difference was observed in the outcomes of death from any cause, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularisation. The subgroup analysis according to different DAPT durations, mono antiplatelet therapies (MAPTs), countries and P2Y12 inhibitors produced similar outcomes as comprehensive outcomes.

Compared with long-term DAPT, short-term DAPT did not increase the risk of ischemic complications but did reduce the risks of major bleeding and any bleeding by over 25%. This study showed that short-term DAPT could be considered for most patients after DES implantation.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has important implications for clinical outcomes in coronary disease. However, the optimal DAPT duration remains uncertain.

We searched four major databases for randomised controlled trials comparing long-term (≥12 months) with short-term (≤6 months) or shorter (≤3 months) DAPT in patients with coronary syndromes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were any bleeding and major bleeding (safety), cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, revascularisation and stroke (efficacy). Nineteen randomised controlled trials (n=60 111) satisfied inclusion criteria, 8 assessed ≤3 months DAPT. Compared with long-term (≥12 months), short-term DAPT (≤6 months) was associated with a trend towards reduced all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01) and significant bleeding reduction (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.83 and RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.77 for major and any bleeding, respectively). There were no significant differences in efficacy outcomes. These associations persisted in sensitivity analysis comparing shorter duration DAPT (≤3 months) to long-term DAPT (≥12 months) for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.05). In subgroup analysis, short-term DAPT was associated with lower risk of bleeding in patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.81 and RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.65, respectively), but higher risk of stent thrombosis in acute coronary syndrome (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.17 vs RR: 1.25, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.58).

Our meta-analysis suggests that short (≤6 months) and shorter (≤3 months) durations DAPT are associated with lower risk of bleeding, equivalent efficacy and a trend towards lower all-cause mortality irrespective of coronary artery disease stability.

Optimal timepoint for the discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after an acute coronary syndrome is still debated. In fact, despite a shortening of DAPT duration should be advocated, based on the negligible risk of thrombotic complications observed with newer generations of drug-eluting stents (DES), in order to reduce the hemorrhagic risk, a more prolonged anti-ischemic protection would be suitable for certain higher-risk patients, rendering the traditional 12 months strategy outdated. We performed an updated meta-analysis and indirect comparison of randomized trials comparing shorter vs extended DAPT duration in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions with DES. Literature and main scientific session abstracts were searched for studies comparing 3-6 (short-term) or prolonged (> 12 months) DAPT vs traditional 12 months in ACS patients treated with DES. The primary efficacy endpoint was mortality, primary safety endpoint was the occurrence of major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. We included three randomized clinical trials and six study sub-analysis comparing alternative (short-term or prolonged) DAPT vs 12 months in post-ACS, with a total of 15,738 patients. Mortality occurred in 1.8% of patients, with no difference according to DAPT duration (short-term vs standard DAPT: OR [95% CI] 1.00 [0.72-1.39], p = 0.99; > 12 vs 12 months: OR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.61-1.22], p = 0.41). No difference in the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis was observed between short-term and standard DAPT, while a significant reduction was achieved only when extending the duration beyond 12 months (MI: OR [95% CI] 0.49 [0.36-0.67], p < 0.00001; ST: OR [95% CI] 0.40 [0.23-0.70], p = 0.001). However, prolonged DAPT was associated with a significant increase in major bleedings (OR [95% CI] 1.69 [1.17-2.45], p = 0.006). In fact, indirect comparison confirmed a significant interaction between short-term vs prolonged DAPT and the risk of myocardial infarction (p < 0.001), stent thrombosis (p = 0.0006) and major bleeding complications (p = 0.02). Based on the current meta-analysis, among ACS patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions with DES, a shorter-term (3 or 6 months) DAPT can be safely considered, offering a non-inferior protection from major cardiovascular ischemic events as compared to the standard 12 months strategy. Extending DAPT therapy beyond 12 months enhances the antithrombotic protection, although paying the fee of increasing major bleeding complications, therefore resulting in a null effect on mortality.

The present study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of long-term (>18 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A total of 3205 coronary artery disease (CAD) patients after PCI from CORFCHD-PCI, a retrospective cohort study (Identifier: ChiCTR-ORC-16010153), were divided into two groups: monotherapy of aspirin or clopidogrel group (SAPT group, n = 2188 and DAPT group, n = 1017) according to whether to discontinue DAPT 18 months after PCI. After propensity matching analysis (PSM), we included 1017 patients in the DAPT group and 1017 patients in the SAPT group. All the patients were followed-up for at least 18 months and the longest follow-up time is 120 months. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The secondary endpoints were the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACEEs) and bleeding events. We also selected 178 patients for detection of claudin-3 and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein and 58 patients for 16s RNA sequencing of whole blood.

The incidences of MACEs (13.9% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.001) and MACCEs (16.3% vs.10.0%, p < 0.001) were significantly increased in the DAPT group compared to the SAPT group. We also found DAPT increased the bleeding events compared to SAPT (4.6% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.048). Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that in the DAPT group, cumulative risk of MACCEs increased 1.797 times (HR = 1.797, 95%CI: 1.429-2.226, p < 0.001), MACEs increased 1.737 times (HR = 1.737, 95%CI: 1.360-2.218, p < 0.001) and the bleeding events increased 2.129 times (HR = 2.129, 95%CI: 1.388-3.266, p = 0.001) compared to the SAPT group. We also found the plasma concentrations of claudin-3 and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) were significantly higher in patients in the DAPT group compared with patients in the SAPT group (both p < 0.001). Correspondingly, the abundance of blood intestinal bacteria in the DAPT group was significantly increased compared to that in the SAPT group (p < 0.001). Furthermore, high-throughput metabolomics analysis suggested that serum level of ceramide (d18:1/16:0) and Neu5Ac was significantly increased in the DAPT group compared to the SAPT group (both p < 0.001).

The present study suggests that long-term dual antiplatelet therapy longer than 18 months significantly increases the incidence of both ischemic events and bleeding events after PCI. This preliminary study also indicates that long-term DAPT causes intestinal injury, which induces translocation of intestinal bacteria into the bloodstream.