CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effect of 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by Clopidogrel vs 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy on Cardiovascular and Bleeding Events in Patients Receiving PCIThe STOPDAPT-2 Randomized Clinical Trial 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Bleeding-Related Deaths in Relation to the Duration of Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting Three vs twelve months of dual antiplatelet therapy after zotarolimus-eluting stents: the OPTIMIZE randomized trial Reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding associated with proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy after myocardial infarction Patterns and associations between DAPT cessation and 2-year clinical outcomes in left main/proximal LAD versus other PCI: Results from the Patterns of Non-Adherence to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Stented Patients (PARIS) Characterization of the Average Daily Ischemic and Bleeding Risk After Primary PCI for STEMI Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT

Original Research2018 Jun 12;137(24):2551-2553.

JOURNAL: Article Link

Conceptual Framework for Addressing Residual Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in the Era of Precision Medicine

Patel KV, Pandey A, de Lemos JA et al. Keywords: atherosclerosis; biomarkers; precision medicine; residual risk; secondary prevention

ABSTRACT

Until recently, therapies to mitigate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk have been limited to lifestyle interventions, blood pressure-lowering medications, high-intensity statin therapy, antiplatelet agents, and, in select patients, coronary artery revascularization. Despite administration of these evidence-based therapies, substantial residual risk for cardiovascular events persists, particularly among individuals with known ASCVD. Moreover, the current guideline-based approach does not adequately account for patient-specific, causal pathways that lead to ASCVD progression and complications. In the past few years, multiple new pharmacological agents, targeting conceptually distinct pathophysiological targets, have been shown in large and well-conducted clinical trials to lower cardiovascular risk among patients with established ASCVD receiving guideline-directed medical care. These evidenced-based therapies reduce event rates and, in some cases, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; these benefits confirm important new disease targets and challenge the adequacy of the current standard of care for secondary prevention.

After years of treating our patients after an acute coronary syndrome event with the same core group of medications that have been proven to be safe, beneficial, and cost-effective, a diverse array of potentially beneficial options to address residual risk is now available. The near simultaneous development of these new approaches to secondary prevention disrupts existing paradigms regarding assessment and treatment of residual risk. For example, consider a hypothetical patient with obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia who had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and received an intracoronary drug-eluting stent. This patient would likely be …

Please click the "Article Link" to address the full text.