CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

Stopping or continuing clopidogrel 12 months after drug-eluting stent placement: the OPTIDUAL randomized trial ISAR-SAFE: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 6 vs. 12 months of clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stenting 6-month versus 12-month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART-DATE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial Second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation followed by 6- versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy: the SECURITY randomized clinical trial Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 6-Month Versus 12-Month Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Long Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial Rationale and design of a prospective substudy of clinical endpoint adjudication processes within an investigator-reported randomised controlled trial in patients with coronary artery disease: the GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-StudY (GLASSY) Individualized antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent deployment: Implication of clinical trials of different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

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.