Key result
High bleeding risk criteria in ACS patients on DAPT predicted higher rates of ischemic (HR 4.6) and bleeding (HR 3.5) events, with temporal risk curves supporting an optimal DAPT duration of 60 days.
Why the study?
This study aimed to estimate temporal risk variations of ischemic and bleeding events during DAPT and suggest the optimal DAPT duration after ACS categorized by ARC-HBR criteria.
What are the temporal risk variations of ischemic and bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, and how do they differ by ARC-HBR criteria?
Observational (n=1,264)
Yes
What are the temporal risk variations of ischemic and bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, and how do they differ by ARC-HBR criteria?
Effect estimate: HR 4.6 (95% CI 2.8-7.4)
Absolute Event Rate: 15.3% vs 4.5%
p-value: p=< 0.01
Temporal risk modeling indicates that a 60-day duration of dual antiplatelet therapy may optimally balance ischemic and bleeding risks after acute coronary syndrome, regardless of ARC-HBR status.
ARC-HBR criteria flag higher ischemic and bleeding risks in ACS on DAPT; hypothesis-generating for 60-day duration pending randomized trials.
Background This study estimates the temporal risk variations of ischemic and bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and suggests the optimal period for DAPT after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) categorized by the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria. Methods A total of 1,264 ACS patients receiving either clopidogrel or prasugrel with aspirin were classified by ARC-HBR criteria into HBR (n = 574) and non-HBR groups (n = 690). This study was designed as a multicenter observation to evaluate the primary endpoints of ischemic, including cardiogenic death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke, and bleeding events, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5. The temporal risk variations were estimated using the Cox hazard and Royston-Parmar models. Results Ischemic and bleeding events were observed in 9.4% and 7.4% of patients, respectively, during an average observation period of 313 days. The HBR group had a higher incidence of both events than the non-HBR group (15.3% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.01 for ischemic; 11.9% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.01 for bleeding). The estimated risk curves revealed a peak and steep decline in the first few days, followed by a constant decline. The peak of risk was higher for bleeding than for ischemic events, but this relationship reversed early, with ischemic events displaying a higher risk in both the HBR and non-HBR groups until at least 60 days. Conclusion A 60-day period of DAPT is appropriate to balance the risks of adverse events after ACS, regardless of ARC-HBR criteria.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fujii et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=1,264). High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) status vs. Non-High Bleeding Risk (non-HBR) status was evaluated on Ischemic events (cardiogenic death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke) (HR 4.6, 95% CI 2.8-7.4, p=< 0.01). High bleeding risk criteria in ACS patients on DAPT predicted higher rates of ischemic (HR 4.6) and bleeding (HR 3.5) events, with temporal risk curves supporting an optimal DAPT duration of 60 days.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: