Key result
Meta-analysis evaluates DAPT score for ischemic and bleeding risk stratification after PCI.
Why the study?
The DAPT score was developed to guide prolonged DAPT after PCI by balancing ischemic and bleeding risk, but its discrimination remains modest and the impact of run-in event-free DAPT period was not assessed.
Meta-Analysis (n=100,211)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Modest DS discrimination persists in updated meta-analysis; challenges routine clinical reliance and extends validation literature.
A personalized approach to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recommended by international guidelines[1] and the DAPT score (DS) was developed as a decision-making tool accounting for both ischemic and bleeding risk to identify patients who can benefit from prolonged DAPT beyond 12 months after PCI ([Fig. 1]).[2] Nonetheless, the DS showed a modest discrimination in individual, or pooled, validation studies but novel data are available and the impact of the run-in event-free DAPT period was not assessed.[3]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montalto et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=100,211). DAPT score was evaluated. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 100,211 patients was conducted to evaluate the DAPT score for stratifying ischemic and bleeding risk after PCI, though no results were reported.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: