Why the study?
To investigate the impact of different anti-platelet strategies on outcomes after PCI in patients with established cardiovascular disease.
Does 1-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy reduce all-cause death or new Q-wave MI in patients with established CVD undergoing PCI?
Does 1-month DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy reduce all-cause death or new Q-wave MI in patients with established CVD undergoing PCI?
In patients with established CVD undergoing PCI, 1-month DAPT followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy did not significantly improve ischemic outcomes compared to standard 12-month DAPT.
May inform post-PCI antiplatelet choice in established CVD; leaves open need for dedicated randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of different anti-platelet strategies on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: GLOBAL LEADERS was a randomized, superiority, all-comers trial comparing one-month dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental treatment) with standard 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin monotherapy (reference treatment) in patients treated with a biolimus A9-eluting stent. Established CVD was defined as ≥1 prior myocardial infarction, PCI, coronary artery bypass operation, stroke, or established peripheral vascular disease. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave MI at 2-years. The secondary safety endpoint was BARC 3 or 5 bleeding. Exploratory secondary endpoints were the patient-orientated composite endpoint and net adverse clinical events. RESULTS: Among the 15,761 patients in this cohort were 6,693 patients (42.5%) with established CVD. Compared to those without established CVD, these patients had significantly higher rates of the primary (5.1 vs. 3.3%, HR1.59[1.36-1.86], p < .001) and secondary composite endpoints with no significant differences in bleeding. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the primary endpoint in patients with established CVD receiving the experimental treatment (4.6 vs. 5.6%, HR0.82[0.66-1.02], p = .07). When comparing patients without CVD to those with one or three territories of CVD, the hazard ratio for the primary endpoint increased in unadjusted and adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: The poorer outcomes in patients with established CVD are not mitigated by prolonged monotherapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor suggesting a greater need to focus on modifiable risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garg et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: