Key result
Extended dual pathway inhibition cuts MACE ~23% in high-risk CCS patients while maintaining net clinical benefit.
Why the study?
The 2024 ESC guidelines revised high-risk criteria for chronic coronary syndrome, prompting an evaluation of net clinical benefit of dual pathway inhibition according to these criteria.
Does dual pathway inhibition with aspirin and rivaroxaban improve net clinical benefit compared to aspirin alone in patients with chronic coronary syndrome stratified by 2024 ESC criteria?
RCT (n=15,429)
randomized
Does dual pathway inhibition with aspirin and rivaroxaban improve net clinical benefit compared to aspirin alone in patients with chronic coronary syndrome stratified by 2024 ESC criteria?
Hazard Ratio: 0.8 (95% CI 0.69–0.93)
Absolute Risk Reduction: 2.06%
The 2024 ESC criteria for chronic coronary syndrome perform poorly in distinguishing ischemic risk, as dual pathway inhibition provides similar net clinical benefit regardless of risk classification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports DPI irrespective of 2024 ESC risk strata; challenges criteria for ischemic risk stratification in CCS.
Background and Aims Extended dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with aspirin and rivaroxaban is recommended in high-risk patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). In the 2024 update of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CCS, the high-risk criteria were revised. In the COMPASS cohort, we evaluated net clinical benefit of DPI according to baseline risk as defined by the ESC criteria in CCS patients. Methods CCS patients randomized to aspirin alone or DPI (n=15,429) were risk stratified using the 2024 ESC criteria. Endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, fatal/critical organ bleeding, and composite adverse events (MACE and bleeding). Net clinical benefit was the 30-month absolute risk difference combining MACE and bleeding. Results High-risk status was associated with higher 30-month incidences of MACE (6.4% vs. 5.0%, HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09−1.63) and composite adverse events (7.1% vs. 5.7%, HR 1.31 [1.09–1.58]), but not all-cause death or bleeding. DPI reduced MACE (low-risk: HR 0.66 [0.45−0.95]; high-risk: HR 0.77 [0.66.−0.91]; p-value for interaction 0.42) and all-cause death (low-risk: 0.78 [0.53−1.14]; high-risk: HR 0.78 [0.64−0.94], p-value for interaction 0.99). DPI provided similar net clinical benefit in low-risk (30-month risk difference -1.77% [-3.88−0.33], HR 0.79 [0.56−1.11]) and high-risk patients (30-month risk difference -2.06% [-3.20−-0.91], HR 0.80 [0.69−0.93]; p-value for interaction 0.94). Conclusions In CCS patients, DPI reduced all-cause death and MACE while increasing major bleeding. The 2024 ESC criteria performed poorly in terms of distinguishing patients at high vs. low ischemic risk, making them inadequate to provide guidance for DPI use.
Würtz et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Chronic coronary syndrome (n=15,429). Extended dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with aspirin and rivaroxaban vs. Aspirin alone was evaluated on Net clinical benefit (composite of MACE and bleeding) in high-risk patients (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93). Dual pathway inhibition provided similar net clinical benefit in low-risk and high-risk patients (high-risk HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.93), indicating 2024 ESC criteria perform poorly for guiding DPI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: