Key result
High bleeding risk linked to higher 1-year incidence of ischemic and thrombotic events.
Why the study?
This analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of high bleeding risk on adverse events after PCI.
Does high bleeding risk status affect the incidence of ischemic and bleeding events in patients receiving 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI?
Observational (n=1,695)
Open-label
Yes
Does high bleeding risk status affect the incidence of ischemic and bleeding events in patients receiving 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI?
Effect estimate: adjusted HR 0.16 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.50)
In patients receiving 3-month DAPT after PCI, high bleeding risk status is associated with an increased risk of ischemic/thrombotic events at 1 year.
HBR after 3-month DAPT post-PCI was associated with higher ischemic events; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BackgroundThis analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of high bleeding risk (HBR) on adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 1695 patients in the MODEL U-SES study, which was a multicenter, open-label, prospective observational study evaluating safety of 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after Ultimaster stent (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) implantation at 65 sites in Japan. Patients were divided into 2 groups (HBR/Non-HBR) according to modified Academic Research Consortium-HBR criteria. Ischemic/thrombotic event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and stent thrombosis) and bleeding event (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) at 1 year were evaluated.ResultsOf 1695 patients, 840 patients were categorized as HBR and 855 patients were Non-HBR. One-year follow-up was completed in 95.3%. During 1-year follow-up, ischemic/thrombotic events were observed in 31 cases (1.8%) and bleeding events occurred in 21 cases (1.2%). Presence of HBR was significantly associated with higher incidence of ischemic/thrombotic events as compared to Non-HBR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.50), whereas the incidence of bleeding events did not reach statistical significance between HBR and Non-HBR. In comparison of monotherapy after DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after DAPT had comparable ischemic/thrombotic and bleeding events with aspirin monotherapy after DAPT in both HBR and Non-HBR.ConclusionIn contemporary PCI practice, nearly half of patients had HBR and presence of HBR significantly increased risk of ischemic/thrombotic events. Both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy following short DAPT had low and comparable ischemic/bleeding events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hioki et al. (2021) conducted an observational in High bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1,695). High Bleeding Risk (HBR) vs. Non-High Bleeding Risk (Non-HBR) was evaluated on Ischemic/thrombotic events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and stent thrombosis) (adjusted HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.50). High bleeding risk was significantly associated with a higher incidence of ischemic/thrombotic events at 1 year compared to non-high bleeding risk (adjusted HR 0.16; 95% CI 0.05-0.50).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: