Why the study?
Dual antiplatelet therapy is integral in CAD, but balancing atherothrombotic versus bleeding risks remains uncertain, leading to differences between ACC/AHA and ESC guideline recommendations.
What are the differences between the ACC/AHA 2016 and ESC 2017 guidelines regarding dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease?
What are the differences between the ACC/AHA 2016 and ESC 2017 guidelines regarding dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease?
This review highlights the differences between the ACC/AHA 2016 and ESC 2017 guidelines for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease to aid clinical decision-making.
Differences in DAPT guidance between ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines warrant clinician awareness of regional variations; leaves open optimal strategies pending updated consensus.
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is integral to the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) but there remains uncertainty as to the optimal approach for balancing an individual's risk of atherothrombotic events versus their risk of bleeding complications. A myriad of clinical trials have investigated how factors such as antiplatelet selection or duration of treatment can affect outcomes in both stable CAD and acute coronary syndromes. To aid clinicians in the challenge of applying trial findings to the circumstances of individual patients, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology have released focused updates on prescribing DAPT in CAD. While the two guidelines agree on many issues, there are some differences in the recommendations. This article highlights those differences and provides comment on their aetiology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christopher N. Floyd (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: