Extended dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 12 months in bi-risk acute coronary syndrome patients did not significantly reduce the primary composite of ischemic events compared to single antiplatelet therapy (2.11% vs. 2.89%, p=0.273).
Observational (n=7,049)
Yes
Does extended dual antiplatelet therapy reduce ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome patients with high ischemic and bleeding risk after percutaneous coronary intervention?
Extended dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 12 months in ACS patients with high ischemic and bleeding risk may reduce stroke risk without significantly increasing major bleeding compared to single antiplatelet therapy.
Absolute Event Rate: 2.11% vs 2.89%
p-value: p=0.273
Background In current clinical practice, controversy remains regarding the clinical benefits of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients facing high risks of both ischemia and bleeding (“bi-risk”) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of identifying a group of bi-risk ACS patients after PCI using the OPT-BIRISK criteria, emphasizing extended DAPT treatment safety and efficacy beyond 12 months in these bi-risk ACS after PCI in real-world conditions. Methods This analysis compared extended DAPT and single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) at 12–24 months in ACS patients undergoing PCI complicated with both ischemic and bleeding risk as defined by OPT-BIRISK criteria without premature DAPT discontinuation before 9 months or major clinical adverse events within 12 months. This was a post hoc analysis of the Optimal antiPlatelet Antiplatelet Therapy for Chinese Patients with Coronary Artery Disease (OPT–CAD) study. The main research outcome was the incidence of ischemic events within 12–24 months, which was determined as a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiac death events. Through propensity score matching (PSM), groups were balanced. For the external validation of the OPT-BIRISK criteria to identify a bi-risk ACS patient, ischemic events, BARC 2, 3, 5 bleeding events, and BARC 3, 5 bleeding events at 5 years were analyzed. Results The total number of ACS patients analyzed in this analysis was 7,049, of whom 4,146 (58.8%) were bi-risk patients and 2,903 (41.2%) were not. The frequency of ischemic events was significantly different between the two groups at 5 years (11.70% vs. 5.55%, P 0.001), and the incidence of BARC 2,3,5 bleeding was significantly higher in the bi-risk group (6.90% vs. 4.03%, P 0.001) than in the non-bi-risk group. Among the bi-risk patients without any clinical adverse events within 12 months that underwent extended DAPT treatment ( n = 2,374, 75.7%) exhibited a lower risk of stroke at 12–24 months (1.10% vs. 2.10%, P = 0.036) relative to those that underwent SAPT ( n = 763, 24.3%), while bleeding risk did not differ significantly between these groups. PSM cohort analysis results were consistent with those of overall group analyses. Conclusion In conclusion, the findings showed that using the OPT-BIRISK criteria could help physicians identify ACS patients at a high risk of developing recurrent ischemia and bleeding episodes after PCI. Compared to antiplatelet monotherapy, a strategy of extended DAPT may offer potential benefits in lowering the risk of stroke without carrying a disproportionately high risk of serious bleeding problems among these patients who were event-free after a year of DAPT.
Na et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Acute coronary syndrome with high ischemic and bleeding risk (n=7,049). Extended dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs. Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) was evaluated on Composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiac death at 12-24 months (p=0.273). Extended dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 12 months in bi-risk acute coronary syndrome patients did not significantly reduce the primary composite of ischemic events compared to single antiplatelet therapy (2.11% vs. 2.89%, p=0.273).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: