Key result
Short (6-month) DAPT showed no significant difference compared to prolonged (>6 months) DAPT for mortality, MI, or target-vessel revascularization at 2 years (7.5% vs 8.3%; HR 0.87; P=0.648).
Why the study?
The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent implantation remains uncertain.
Does 6-month DAPT compared to prolonged DAPT improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI with BP-EES?
Cohort (n=793)
Yes
Does 6-month DAPT compared to prolonged DAPT improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI with BP-EES?
Hazard Ratio: 0.87 (95% CI 0.47–1.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.5% vs 8.3%
p-value: p=0.648
Six-month DAPT is associated with similar ischemic and bleeding outcomes compared to prolonged DAPT in real-world patients receiving biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Background. The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after biodegradable-polymer (BP) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) implantation remains uncertain. Methods. This study analyzed 793 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-EES in 10 cardiovascular centers in Korea between July 2016 and January 2018. Using the prescription data at 6 months post-PCI, we divided these patients into two groups, namely, short-DAPT and prolonged-DAPT groups, which underwent DAPT for 6 and > 6 months of PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint, which included mortality, myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization at 2 years, was compared by propensity score (PS) matching between the two groups. Results. Out of the 793 patients, 283 matched pairs were identified by PS matching. Out of this matched population, 405 (71.6%) patients had an acute coronary syndrome. The primary endpoint did not differ in 2 years between the short-DAPT and prolonged-DAPT groups (7.5% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidential interval, 0.47–1.60; P = 0.648 ). Likewise, no difference was found regarding mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, target-lesion failure, target-vessel failure, and bleeding events defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium and Thrombolysis In the Myocardial Infarction classification. Meanwhile, one patient in the short-DAPT group had definite stent thrombosis at 364 days post-PCI. Subgroup analysis showed that several anatomical and procedural factors were not significantly related to DAPT duration. Most patients (77.4%) in both groups were prescribed clopidogrel at discharge. Conclusions. In real-world patients undergoing PCI with BP-EES, the ischemic and bleeding endpoints demonstrated no difference between 6-month and prolonged (>6 months) DAPT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoon et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Percutaneous coronary intervention with biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (n=793). 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs. Prolonged (>6 months) DAPT was evaluated on Mortality, myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization at 2 years (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47-1.60, p=0.648). Short (6-month) DAPT showed no significant difference compared to prolonged (>6 months) DAPT for mortality, MI, or target-vessel revascularization at 2 years (7.5% vs 8.3%; HR 0.87; P=0.648).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: