Key result
Intensified antithrombotic regimens reach only ~14% of eligible post-PCI patients after initial DAPT.
Why the study?
The authors aimed to characterize eligibility to single antiplatelet therapy versus intensified antithrombotic regimens after initial DAPT following PCI, and explore how well guidelines are applied in clinical practice.
What is the eligibility for and clinical adherence to intensified antithrombotic regimens for secondary prevention in patients who underwent PCI?
Observational (n=819)
What is the eligibility for and clinical adherence to intensified antithrombotic regimens for secondary prevention in patients who underwent PCI?
Intensified antithrombotic regimens are significantly underutilized in eligible post-PCI patients, highlighting a gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice.
Underutilization of intensified regimens persists in eligible post-PCI patients; leaves open whether targeted interventions can improve adherence.
Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) and intensified antithrombotic regimens (prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT] or dual pathway inhibition [DPI]) are recommended for secondary prevention in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after initial DAPT. We aimed to characterize eligibility to such strategies and to explore to what extent guidelines are applied in clinical practice. Patients who underwent PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome who completed initial DAPT were analyzed from a prospective registry. Patients were categorized into SAPT, prolonged DAPT/DPI, or DPI groups as per guideline indication by using a risk stratification algorithm. Predictors of receiving intensified regimens and the divergency of practice from guidelines were investigated. Between October 2019 and September 2021, a total of 819 patients were included. Based on the guidelines, 83.7% of patients qualified for SAPT, 9.6% for any intensified regimen (i.e., prolonged DAPT or DPI), and 6.7% for DPI only. At multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive an intensified regimen if they had diabetes, dyslipidemia, peripheral artery disease, multivessel disease, or previous myocardial infarction. Conversely, they were less likely to receive an intensified regimen if they had atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, or previous stroke. Guidelines were not followed in 18.3% of cases. In particular, only 14.3% of candidates to intensified regimens were treated accordingly. In conclusion, although the majority of patients who underwent PCI after the initial period of DAPT were eligible for SAPT, 1 out of 6 had an indication to intensified regimens. However, such intensified regimens were underused among eligible patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greco et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after initial DAPT (n=819). Intensified antithrombotic regimens (prolonged DAPT or DPI) vs. Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) was evaluated on Proportion of candidates to intensified regimens treated accordingly. Among patients who underwent PCI and completed initial DAPT, 16.3% were eligible for intensified antithrombotic regimens, but only 14.3% of these candidates were treated accordingly.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: