Abstract
Background
Very short (≤ 3 months) duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (VSDAPT) has recently been proposed after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES).
Objectives
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare very short versus > 3 months’ duration of dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) in patients undergoing PCI with DES, focusing on ischemic and bleeding events.
Methods
Three major databases (Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus) were screened for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoint of our meta-analysis was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACE), as defined per trial, while secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, repeat revascularization, and major bleeding.
Results
We included eight RCTs with a total of 41,204 patients; 20,592 patients were allocated to VSDAPT and the remaining 20,612 patients were randomized to a longer DAPT period. The abbreviated regimen significantly reduced NACE (odds ratio [OR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [Cl] 0.74–0.95) and major bleeding (OR 0.71, 95% Cl 0.61–0.82), without affecting mortality or ischemic events (stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stent thrombosis).
Conclusions
VSDAPT significantly decreased the odds of NACEs and major bleeding by 17% and 29%, respectively, without increasing ischemic events. Thus, VSDAPT could be well tolerated and feasible after PCI with DES.
Clinical Trials Registration
Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/4H2JB)
Graphical Abstract
Very short-term DAPT significantly reduces NACE and major bleedings, without affecting mortality and ischemic events (MACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis and revascularization). CI confidence intervals, DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy, DES drug-eluting stents, MACE major adverse cardiovascular events, MI myocardial infarction, NACE net adverse clinical events, OR odds ratio, PCI percutaneous coronary interventions.
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs40256-022-00559-0/MediaObjects/40256_2022_559_Figa_HTML.png)
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but it increases the risk of bleeding and may lead to adverse or even fatal events [1]. DAPT duration and P2Y12 inhibitor selection can significantly influence the balance between ischemia and hemorrhage. Whereas ischemic events and stent thrombosis occur mainly during the early post-PCI period, bleeding events may ensue with a longer duration of antiplatelet therapy [2].
Current guidelines recommend DAPT following PCI with drug-eluting stents (DESs) for 6 and 12 months for patients with chronic (CCS) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS), respectively; this period could be decreased to 1–3 months for high bleeding risk patients. Nevertheless, the duration of DAPT could be prolonged according to the anatomical, technical, or clinical characteristics of a patient, based on what we call individualized management [2,3,4,5]. Improvements in DES design and use of intravascular imaging and physiology for stent optimization have decreased the risk of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis [6, 7]. Against this background, several studies investigated whether a very short-term DAPT (VSDAPT) strategy could be safe and feasible after newer-generation DES implantation, with conflicting results; some studies suggested benefit with short DAPT while other studies raised concerns for increased risk of thrombotic complications [8].
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of a short (≤ 3 months) versus > 3-month duration of DAPT after PCI.
2 Methods
Our systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [9]. The rationale and design of our project was registered in the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4H2JB). Institutional Review Board approval was not required as this was a study-level meta-analysis of previously published data.
2.1 Eligibility Criteria and Endpoints
Studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis if they met all of the following criteria; (1) randomized controlled trials (RCT) including human subjects; (2) DAPT duration ≤ 90 days in the intervention arm; (3) DAPT duration of at least 91 days in the comparator arm; (4) PCI with DES in all included patients who presented with ACS or CCS; and (5) published after 1 January 2015. We set a time frame so as to include studies with only newer-generation stents and for our findings to be more compatible with current clinical practice.
The prespecified primary endpoint of our study was the incidence of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis. Other secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, repeat revascularization, and major bleeding. NACE and MACE were used as defined in each included trial. Regarding major bleeding, we preferred the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria over Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) or Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Patients, an International Randomized Evaluation (STEEPLE) criteria for the definition of major bleeding, for better consistency between the studies. More information about the definitions for each endpoint are summarized in electronic supplementary material (ESM) Table 1.
2.2 Information Sources
We searched the current literature by conducting an electronic bibliographic database screening in three databases—Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. All searches were undertaken on 16 January 2022. Moreover, we manually searched the reference lists of the retrieved studies to identify any other eligible trials.
2.3 Search Strategy
The electronic search included the following terms: ‘dual antiplatelet treatment’, ‘DAPT’, ‘percutaneous coronary intervention’, ‘PCI’, ‘drug eluting stents’, and ‘DES’. The comprehensive search strategy was tailored for each database, as presented in ESM Table 1. No language restrictions were imposed.
2.4 Selection Process
All studies identified in the systematic search of the electronic databases were imported into Endnote and duplicates were removed. Supportive reports from the same study were combined. The titles, abstracts, and keywords of all articles were screened by two independent reviewers (AA, AT) and irrelevant articles were removed. The full-text articles were then evaluated by two reviewers (AA, DC). Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and consultation with the remaining authors.
2.5 Data Collection Process
A standardized data extraction form was developed to extract the study characteristics and outcomes. This form was tested in three randomly selected studies by all study authors. After completing the form, two of the authors independently extracted the data from each study (AA, DC). A third study member (GT) validated the extracted data, resolved any disagreements, and entered the data into Review Manager 5 software (Review Manager 2014).
2.6 Data Items
We extracted data from the included studies as follows: (1) the report: authors, year and source of publication; (2) the study: sample size, randomization, inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) the participants: demographic characteristics, comorbidities, pharmacotherapy; (4) the procedure: periprocedural characteristics, stent type, indication for intervention; (5) DAPT type and duration; and (6) outcomes during the 1-year follow-up period.
2.7 Study Risk-of-Bias Assessment
We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the revised Cochrane ‘Risk of Bias’ tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) [10]. Two authors (AA, AT) applied the previous tools in each included study. Any discrepancies in judgements of risk of bias were resolved through consultation and discussion to reach consensus between the two investigators, with a third author (GT) acting as an arbiter, when appropriate. To assess the potential publication bias, we constructed funnel plots in which the sample size was plotted against odds ratios (ORs) for each endpoint.
2.8 Statistical Analysis
All analyses were performed at the study level. ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for the estimation of the effect of the different DAPT regimens. Each study that did not provide adequate data about a specific outcome was excluded from the relevant analysis regarding this endpoint. All analyses were conducted in an intention-to-treat manner. The pooled OR was estimated by applying a fixed-effect model (Mantel–Haenszel) [11]. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated by applying the statistical inconsistency test (I2 = 100% × (Q−df)/Q, where ‘Q’ = Chi-square (Cochran’s heterogeneity statistic) and df = degrees of freedom), and where I2 ≤25% signifies low heterogeneity, I2 ≤50% is moderate heterogeneity, and I2 >50% is considered high heterogeneity [12]. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing one study at a time and repeating the statistical analysis. Review Manager software version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) was used for the analyses. Moreover, we performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) in order to examine the accrual of adequate patient sample size and minimize the risk of statistical errors. The information size required for a valid meta‐analysis may be assumed to be at least as large as the sample size of a single well‐powered RCT designed to confirm or refute the null hypothesis [13]. To investigate the potential interaction of ACS and the treatment effect of VSDAPT, we performed meta-regression (mixed-effects model) of the log OR against the prevalence (percentage ratio) of ACS in the enrolled study population using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
3 Results
3.1 Search Results
Our systematic search in the three databases identified 8681 records. After removal of duplicates, 6086 records remained for title and abstract review, of which 53 underwent full-text screening. Overall, eight RCTs were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review and meta-analysis [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Our systematic search of the literature is depicted in the PRISMA flowchart shown in ESM Fig. 1).
3.2 Study Characteristics
The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of each study as well as the endpoints, both primary and secondary, are presented in ESM Table 3. A total of 41,204 patients were included, of whom 20,592 were allocated to the VSDAPT arm and 20,612 were allocated to the DAPT > 3 months arm. Two studies only included ACS patients [18, 19], while the remaining six studies included patients with both ACS and CCS. One-month DAPT was selected in four studies, whereas 3-month duration was chosen in the remaining four studies in the intervention arm. The One-Month DAPT trial used aspirin as monotherapy after the shortened regimen [20]. One study included only patients under high bleeding risk [21]. The follow-up duration was 24 months in two trials and 12 months in the remaining six trials [14, 18]. All endpoints were evaluated during the 1-year follow-up period.
3.3 Patient Characteristics
The baseline characteristics of the study patients are shown in Table 2 and did not vary significantly among the included studies and populations. Women were underrepresented in all trials, representing < 30% of the total patients, except the One-Month DAPT and the MAnagement of high bleeding risk patients post bioresorbable polymer coated STEnt implantation with an abbReviated versus prolonged DAPT regimen (MASTER-DAPT) trials [20, 21]. More than half of the patients presented with ACS. Six of the included trials included at least 10% of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
3.4 Primary Endpoint-Net Adverse Clinical Events
The incidence of NACE was available for six trials, with a total of 18,117 patients. The Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial did not provide data about NACE, while GLOBAL LEADERS presented data for only 2 years of follow-up of NACE [14, 17]. NACE occurred in 479 patients treated with the VSDAPT regimen and 567 patients in the control group. VSDAPT resulted in 17% odds reduction of NACEs (OR 0.83, 95% Cl 0.74–0.95). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.35) (Fig. 1).
3.5 Secondary Endpoints
3.5.1 Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events
All trials, except the One-Month study, provided adequate data about MACE. A total of 1221/38,184 patients experienced at least one MACE, as defined in each trial, during follow-up. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two study arms (OR 0.92, 95% Cl 0.82–1.03). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.32) (Fig. 2).
3.5.2 All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality
Data about all-cause mortality were available for all included studies, while GLOBAL LEADERS was the only study that did not provide results about cardiovascular mortality. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the two arms, for both all-cause (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75–1.03) (Fig. 3a) and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62–1.03) (Fig. 3b). The heterogeneity among trials was low for both endpoints (p = 0.37 and p = 0.65, respectively) (Fig. 4).
3.5.3 Major Bleeding
Data on major bleeding were available in the total population of the present meta-analysis. Major bleeding was considered as bleeding classified according to the BARC 3–5 guidelines, except in the Short-term Dual Anti Platelet Therapy in Patients With ACS Treated With the COMBO Dual-therapy Stent (REDUCE) trial, which was included in the BARC 2–5 guidelines [18]. As displayed in the figure, the abbreviated regimen decreased the risk of major bleeding by 29% at 1-year follow-up (1.6% vs. 2.2%; OR 0.71, 95% Cl 0.61–0.82; I2 = 45%, p = 0.08).
3.5.4 Myocardial Infarction and Stroke
All eight studies involving a total of 41,204 patients reported data about myocardial infarction and stroke. We estimated that 1.9% (398/20,592) of the intervention group and 1.8% (377/20,612) of the control arm suffered a MI, with a calculated pooled OR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.92–1.22). Moreover, 122/20,592 patients who received VSDAPT and 131/20,612 patients who received >3 months of DAPT experienced a stroke during the duration of the study, with a pooled OR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.73–1.19). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (p = 0.59 and p = 0.12, respectively, for MI and stroke) (Fig. 5).
3.5.5 Stent Thrombosis and Repeat Revascularization
All eight studies reported data on stent thrombosis, while five of the studies reported data about the urgency of revascularization. No statistically significant difference with low heterogeneity was observed between the two arms for both stent thrombosis (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95–1.65; I2 = 0%, p = 0.54) (Fig. 6a) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88–1.10, I2 = 6%, p = 0.37) (Fig. 6b).
3.6 Trial Sequential Analysis
TSA included six RCTs reporting NACE outcomes, with a total sample size of n = 18,117 with clinical follow‐up at 1 year. This shows the cumulative curve of the Z-score statistic and the O’Brien–Fleming trial sequential monitoring boundaries to control statistical errors against the available sample size. Clearly, the cumulative Z-curve crosses the external alpha‐spending boundaries, and the required information size (cumulative patient sample) has been achieved (ESM Fig. 2)
3.7 Risk-of-Bias Assessment, Sensitivity, and Meta-Regression Analysis
A risk-of-bias summary and graph were prepared according the RoB 2.0 tool and are presented in ESM Fig. 3. All included studies were in the lower categories for risk of bias.
Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. Symmetric distribution of the mean effect size was noticed in funnel plots for all endpoints, suggesting low risk of publication bias of the included studies (ESM Fig. 4). The statistical significance of the overall results did not change through the sensitivity analyses, confirming the robustness of our findings.
Meta-regression analysis for ACS patients showed no significant association between percentage ACS in the treated population and the observed effect size, as the coefficient of the regression line is −0.0014 ± 0.0031 (p = 0.656) (ESM Fig. 5).
4 Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, our systematic review and meta-analysis is the first to include more than 40,000 patients undergoing PCI with DES in the era of VSDAPT. The newer generation of DESs with thin struts, and the advancement of intracoronary imaging, have resulted in better stent deployment, high PCI success rates, and low risk of thrombotic complications [7, 22]. According to our findings, a very short (≤ 3 months) DAPT duration significantly decreased the risk for NACEs and major bleeding, without increasing the risk of ischemic events.
VSDAPT was recently introduced in clinical practice, and describes early (≤ 90 days) discontinuation of DAPT. Whereas there are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on DAPT duration post PCI, only two included VSDAPT as the intervention arm [23, 24]. Benenati et al. were the first to perform a meta-analysis of VSDAPT [24]. They included seven RCTs with 37,785 patients, showing a benefit of abbreviated DAPT on bleeding risk. Verdoia and colleagues included five RCTs with approximately 38,000 patients with ACS or CCS [23]. Similar to our study, they found a benefit of abbreviated DAPT duration on major bleeding.
However, none of these meta-analyses included the three most recent, large-scale RCTs. Kim et al. compared the 3-month DAPT plus ticagrelor per se for the remaining 9 months with ticagrelor-based 12-month DAPT in patients with ACS [19]. The TICO trial showed a modest but statistically significant result in favor of 3-month DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy. Hong et al. investigated whether 1 month of DAPT followed by aspirin after PCI with polymer-free drug-coated stent (PF-DCS) implantation is non-inferior to 6–12 months of DAPT after biodegradable-polymer DES (BP-DES) placement [20]. They found that the abbreviated DAPT regimen was non-inferior to > 3 months of DAPT but these findings should be validated with other stent types. The most recent RCT included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis is the MASTER-DAPT trial, in which Valgimigli et al. compared the abbreviated versus standard-of-care DAPT regimen in patients with high bleeding risk, supporting that 1-month of DAPT is non-inferior for the prevention of NACE [21].
Our systematic review and meta-analysis was the first to use NACE as the primary endpoint. An increasing number of trials studying antithrombotic treatments use this novel composite endpoint. In contrast with MACE, NACE includes major bleeding so as to cover a wider spectrum of adverse events, both thrombotic and hemorrhagic.
In addition, ours is one of the first meta-analyses to include a TSA, showing that the cumulative sample size has been achieved, and hence strengthening the power of our results.
Our meta-analysis tried to cover the entire range of patients with coronary disease, either presented acutely or on a chronic basis. While it could be supposed that this could add heterogeneity among the populations, and inconsistency of the results, our meta-analysis showed that the ACS did not alter the overall effect size, supporting that VSDAPT is feasible and safe even for ACS patients. Nevertheless, the majority of patients included in our meta-analysis suffered from ACS, while a significant proportion of patients presented with STEMI. These findings are in accordance with the existing literature; a recent meta-analysis with nine RCTs and more than 25,000 patients showed that VSDAPT has similar efficacy for preventing ischemic events with decreased bleeding risk compared with 6–12 months of DAPT [25].
The selection of antiplatelet agents after discontinuation of DAPT remains controversial. Most studies used a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for a more successful platelet inhibition. Giacoppo et al. did not achieve to exact a clear conclusion in their recent, large-scale network meta-analysis [26]. Ticagrelor has been considered an acceptable option after short-term DAPT [27]. In their recent network meta-analysis, Ullah et al. showed that 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with the best outcomes, independently of the indication of the procedure [28]. However, more studies comparing ticagrelor with aspirin and another P2Y12 inhibitor as monotherapy after a short course of DAPT are required. Finally, based on the PANTHER analysis results and the HOST-EXAM trial, the use of P2Y12 inhibitors instead of aspirin monotherapy seems to be a reasonable choice, especially in young CCS patients with a previous PCI and low bleeding risk or a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding [29].
Our findings are in accordance with the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines that support the very short duration of DAPT for both ACS and CCS patients under special circumstances [4, 30]. Taking into consideration the fact that many of the analyzed studies included ACS patients, 1- or 3-month DAPT duration could be a feasible option for acute patients with high bleeding risk [31].
Our meta-analysis supports a strategy of VSDAPT mainly with potent P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, likely ticagrelor according to the existing literature, as a safe option in patients treated with new-generation DES. Certainly, further investigation is needed regarding patients' clinical profiles that may derive maximum benefit from such a strategy, the most appropriate P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, and the optimal DAPT duration.
4.1 Limitations
Our systematic review and meta-analysis has limitations. First, this was a study-level meta-analysis and thus the absence of patient-level data and individualized baseline characteristics did not allow the estimation of their impact on outcomes. Second, our systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes data from patients with both ACS and CCS who presented with different bleeding and thrombotic profiles. However, low-to-moderate heterogeneity was found in all analyzed trials, therefore the wide variety of clinical presentations did not affect the quality and confirmed that a very short duration of DAPT could be administered for patients with ACS and CCS. Moreover, the meta-regression analysis showed that no significant association between percentage ACS in the treated population and the observed effect size existed. Third, the definition of the composite outcomes differed slightly among the included trials. However, a consensus has not been achieved on the definition and validity of the composite outcome of NACEs or MACEs, although it would be useful for comparing the antithrombotic regimens. For this reason, we comprehensively presented the definition of each trial in ESM Table 3.
5 Conclusions
The present meta-analysis of patients undergoing PCI with DES indicates that VSDAPT (≤ 3 months) significantly decreases the rate of NACE and major bleeding, without increasing the risk of ischemic events or mortality, compared with > 3 months of DAPT duration. The odds of NACE and major bleeding were reduced by 17% and 29%, respectively. Overall, our meta-analysis supports the very short term of DAPT, but the duration and P2Y12 inhibitor selection should be tailored to individual benefit-risk profiles.
References
Capodanno D, Alfonso F, Levine GN, Valgimigli M, Angiolillo DJ. ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines on dual antiplatelet therapy: JACC guideline comparison. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2915–31.
Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, Collet J-P, Costa F, Jeppsson A, et al. 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. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213–60.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, Brindis RG, Fihn SD, Fleisher LA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STA guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 2016;134:e123–55.
Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:1289–367.
Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;2022:e21-129.
Shlofmitz E, Case BC, Chen Y, Chezar-Azerrad C, Hashim H, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Waksman in-stent restenosis classification: a mechanism-based approach to the treatment of restenosis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;33:62–7.
Maehara A, Matsumura M, Ali ZA, Mintz GS, Stone GW. IVUS-guided versus OCT-guided coronary stent implantation: a critical appraisal. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:1487–503.
Hahn J-Y, Song Y Bin, Oh J-H, Cho D-K, Lee JB, Doh J-H, et al. 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. Lancet. 2018;391:1274–84.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898.
Fidler V, Nagelkerke N. The Mantel-Haenszel procedure revisited: models and generalizations. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e58327.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.
Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:64–75.
Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Jüni P, Hamm C, Steg PG, Heg D, et al. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-la. Lancet. 2018;392:940–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-01649861/full.
Hahn JY, Song YB, Oh JH, Chun WJ, Park YH, Jang WJ, et al. Effect of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SMART-CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:2428–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-01951597/full.
Watanabe H, Domei T, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M, Shiomi H, Toyota T, et al. Effect of 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by clopidogrel vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients receiving PCI: the STOPDAPT-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321:2414–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-01951598/full.
Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, Cohen DJ, Angiolillo DJ, Briguori C, et al. Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2032–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-01997924/full.
De Luca G, Damen SA, Camaro C, Benit E, Verdoia M, Rasoul S, et al. Final results of the randomised evaluation of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a new-generation stent (REDUCE trial). EuroIntervention. 2019;15:e990–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-02012273/full.
Kim B-K, Hong S-J, Cho Y-H, Yun KH, Kim YH, Suh Y, et al. Effect of ticagrelor monotherapy vs ticagrelor with aspirin on major bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: the TICO randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323:2407–16.
Hong SJ, Kim JS, Hong SJ, Lim DS, Lee SY, Yun KH, et al. 1-Month dual-antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin monotherapy after polymer-free drug-coated stent implantation: one-month DAPT trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:1801–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-02301849/full.
Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Heg D, Tijssen J, Jüni P, Vranckx P, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1643–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-02340226/full.
Tsigkas G, Papageorgiou A, Moulias A, Kalogeropoulos AP, Papageorgopoulou C, Apostolos A, et al. Distal or traditional transradial access site for coronary procedures: a single-center, randomized study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:22–32.
Verdoia M, Khedi E, Suryapranata H, De Luca G. Very short dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI and new DES: a meta-analysis of 5 randomized trials. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2021;74:140–8.
Benenati S, Galli M, De Marzo V, Pescetelli F, Toma M, Andreotti F, et al. Very short vs. long dual antiplatelet therapy after second generation drug-eluting stents in 35 785 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Hear journal Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7:86–93.
Park DY, Wang P, An S, Grimshaw AA, Frampton J, Ohman EM, et al. Shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2022;251:101–14.
Giacoppo D, Matsuda Y, Fovino LN, D’Amico G, Gargiulo G, Byrne RA, et al. Short dual antiplatelet therapy followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs. prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with second-generation drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clini. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:308–19.
Valgimigli M, Mehran R, Franzone A, da Costa BR, Baber U, Piccolo R, et al. Ticagrelor monotherapy versus dual-antiplatelet therapy after PCI: an individual patient-level meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:444–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-02336026/full.
Ullah W, Zahid S, Sandhyavenu H, Faisaluddin M, Khalil F, Pasha AK, et al. Extended, standard or De-escalation antiplatelet therapy for patients with CAD undergoing PCI? A trial-sequential, bivariate, influential and network meta-analysis. Eur Hear J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2022;8(7):717–27.
Koo B-K, Kang J, Park KW, Rhee T-M, Yang H-M, Won K-B, et al. Aspirin versus clopidogrel for chronic maintenance monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (HOST-EXAM): an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2021;397:2487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/central/CN-02293020/full.
Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, Capodanno D, Barbato E, Funck-Brentano C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(3):407–77.
Apostolos A, Trigka A, Chlorogiannis D, Vasilagkos G, Chamakioti M, Spyropoulou P, Karamasis G, Dimitriadis K, Moulias A, Katsanos K, Tsioufis C, Toutouzas K, Alexopoulos D, Davlouros P, Tsigkas G. 2022 Thirty-days versus standard duration of dual antiplatelet treatment after percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal 43(Supplement_2). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.2717
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
Open access funding provided by HEAL-Link Greece.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this articles.
Conflict of interest
Grigorios Tsigkas has received advisory board/lecturing fees from Astra Zeneca, Menarini, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Konstantinos Toutouzas has received honorarium from Sanofi Adventist. Dimitrios Alexopoulos has received advisory board/lecturing fees from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Chiesi Hellas. Emmanouil S. Brilakis has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (Associate Editor Circulation), Amgen, Asahi Intecc, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, IMDS, InfraRedx, Medicure, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, and Teleflex; and research support from Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare. He is also an owner of Hippocrates LLC; and a shareholder of MHI Ventures, Cleerly Health, and Stallion Medical. Periklis Davlouros has received advisory board/lecturing fees from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Menarini, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Anastasios Apostolos, Aikaterini Trigka, Dimitrios Chlorogiannis, and Konstantinos Katsanos declare no conflicts of interest.
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Authors contributions
GT, AA, and PD designed the analysis. AA, AT, and DC collected the data. AA and KK performed the analysis. GT and AA wrote the manuscript. KT, DA, ESB, and PD reviewed the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tsigkas, G., Apostolos, A., Trigka, A. et al. Very Short Versus Longer Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 23, 35–46 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-022-00559-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40256-022-00559-0