CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

DAPT Duration

科研文章

荐读文献

Long-term dual antiplatelet-induced intestinal injury resulting in translocation of intestinal bacteria into blood circulation increased the incidence of adverse events after PCI in patients with coronary artery disease Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Adjunctive Cilostazol to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Enhance Mobilization of Endothelial Progenitor Cell in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled EPISODE 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 Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Long Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: The IVUS-XPL Randomized Clinical Trial Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing PCI: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Original Research2020 Jun 9.

JOURNAL:Adv Ther. Article Link

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study

Sicong Ma, Zaixin Jiang, YL Han et al.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION - Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for medically managed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (MMACS) patients is still unknown. We explored the efficacy and safety of12-month DAPT among MMACS patients.

 

METHODS - In this sub-analysis of the optimal antiplatelet therapy for Chinese Patients with Coronary Artery Disease study (NCT01735305), clinical outcomes among MMACS patients were compared between the < 12-month and12-month DAPT groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints included the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 25, BARC 35, and all bleeding events. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare baseline characteristics between the < 12-month and12-month DAPT groups.

 

RESULTS - In this cohort of ACS patients (n = 10,016), MMACS patients (n = 2967) were less likely to use DAPT at 12 (31.64% vs. 67.47%, P < 0.0001) and 24 (13.82% vs. 18.71%, P < 0.0001) months and experienced more ischemic events at 12 (4.55% vs. 3.40%, P = 0.006) and 24 (6.88% vs. 5.08%, P = 0.0004) months than those treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 7049). Among MMACS patients, the rate of primary efficacy endpoint occurring within the second year was significantly higher in the < 12-month DAPT group than in the12-month group both before (2.88% vs. 1.60%, P = 0.040) and after (3.19% vs. 1.71%, P = 0.045) PSM. After PSM, no significant differences in all bleeding, BARC 25, and BARC 35 bleeding were found between the groups.

 

CONCLUSION - MMACS patients with insufficient DAPT management experienced relatively more ischemic events. DAPT for at least 1 year may be beneficial to this special population without significantly increasing the bleeding risks.