Key result
Bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy was an independent predictor of all-cause death (HR 1.28), myocardial infarction (HR 1.71), and stroke (HR 2.29) in patients with coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the impact of bleeding on clinical outcomes between patients presenting with AMI versus CCS receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting.
Does bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy confer a different risk of adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to chronic coronary syndrome?
Cohort (n=35,115)
Yes
Does bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy confer a different risk of adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to chronic coronary syndrome?
Hazard Ratio: 1.28 (95% CI 1.21–1.36)
p-value: p=<0.001
In East Asian patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting, bleeding is an independent predictor of subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, with AMI patients facing a higher risk of ischemic events following a bleed compared to CCS patients.
Bleeding may weigh more heavily on outcomes in AMI than CCS after stenting; leaves open differential management strategies pending prospective trials.
This nationwide retrospective cohort study used the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan to compare the impact of bleeding on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) versus chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). Between July 2007 and December 2010, patients with AMI (n = 15,391) and CCS (n = 19,724) who received dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting were identified from the database. AMI was associated with increased risks of MI (AMI vs. CCS: 0.38 vs. 0.16 per 100 patient-months; p < 0.01), all-cause death (0.49 vs. 0.32 per 100 patient-months; p < 0.01), and BARC type 3 bleeding (0.22 vs. 0.13 per 100 patient-months; p < 0.01) at 1 year compared with CCS, while the risk of BARC type 2 bleeding was marginally higher in the CCS patients than in the AMI patients (1.32 vs. 1.4 per 100 person-months; p = 0.06). Bleeding was an independent predictor of MI, stroke, and all-cause death in this East Asian population, regardless of the initial presentation. Among the patients with bleeding, AMI was associated with a higher risk of ischemic events at 1 year after bleeding compared with CCS (MI: 0.34 vs. 0.25 per 100 patient-months; p = 0.06; ischemic stroke: 0.22 vs. 0.13 per 100 patient-months; p = 0.02). The 1-year mortality after bleeding was comparable between the two groups after propensity score weighting. In conclusion, bleeding conferred an increased risk of adverse outcomes in East Asian patients with AMI and CCS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tung et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease (acute myocardial infarction or chronic coronary syndrome) (n=35,115). Bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy vs. No bleeding was evaluated on All-cause death (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.21-1.36, p=<0.001). Bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy was an independent predictor of all-cause death (HR 1.28), myocardial infarction (HR 1.71), and stroke (HR 2.29) in patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: