DAPT

Ticagrelor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: Per-Protocol Analysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial.

Background: In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor monotherapy beyond 1 month compared with standard antiplatelet regimens after coronary stent implantation did not improve outcomes at intention-to-treat analysis. Considerable differences in treatment adherence between the experimental and control groups may have affected the intention-to-treat results. In this reanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, we compared the experimental and control treatment strategies in a per-protocol analysis of patients who did not deviate from the study protocol.

Methods and results: Baseline and postrandomization information were used to classify whether and when patients were deviating from the study protocol. With logistic regressions, we derived time-varying inverse probabilities of nondeviation from protocol to reconstruct the trial population without protocol deviation. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction at 2 years. At 2-year follow-up, 1.103 (13.8%) of 7.980 patients in the experimental group and 785 (9.8%) of 7.988 patients in the control group qualified as protocol deviators. At per-protocol analysis, the rate ratio for the primary endpoint was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75-1.03; p=0.10) on the basis of 274 versus 325 events in the experimental versus control group. The rate ratio for the key safety endpoint of major bleeding was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.26; p=0.99). The per-protocol and intention-to-treat effect estimates were overall consistent.

Conclusions: Among patients who complied with the study protocol in the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, ticagrelor plus ASA for 1 month followed by ticagrelor monotherapy was not superior to 1-year standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ASA alone at 2 years after coronary stenting.

LEGGI TUTTO »

Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and de-escalation in a network meta-analysis using standard DAPT as common comparator.

Background: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), shortening DAPT and de-escalating to a lower potency regimen mitigate bleeding risk. These strategies have never been randomly compared.

Methods: Randomized trials of DAPT modulation strategies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI were identified. All-cause death was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), major adverse cardiovascular events, and their components. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. Treatments were ranked on the basis of posterior probability. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity.

Results: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 50,602 patients were included. The transitivity assumption was fulfilled. In the frequentist indirect comparison, the risk ratio (RR) for all-cause death was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68-1.43). De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and increased major bleeding (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.07-2.21). These results were consistent in the Bayesian meta-analysis. De-escalation displayed a >95% probability to rank first for NACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, while short DAPT ranked first for major bleeding. These findings were consistent in node-split and multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, there was no difference in all-cause death between short DAPT and de-escalation. De-escalation reduced the risk for NACE, while short DAPT decreased major bleeding. These data characterize 2 contemporary strategies to personalize DAPT on the basis of treatment objectives and risk profile.

LEGGI TUTTO »

Con quale singolo farmaco antipiastrinico proseguire dopo il periodo di doppia antiaggregazione nei pazienti con impianto di stent: ASA o clopidogrel?

La letteratura attuale non dà una risposta precisa a questa domanda, perchè non sono stati condotti studi di confronto tra ASA e clopidogrel in una popolazione di pazienti sottoposti a impianto di stent medicato per una coronaropatia acuta o stabile, e che abbiano completato il periodo di doppia antiaggregazione (DAPT). Uno studio di ampie dimensioni, il CAPRIE, aveva peraltro confrontato, 25 anni orsono, questi due farmaci in pazienti con varie manifestazioni di malattia aterotrombotica, ma senza includere pazienti con impianto di stent (gli stent medicati a quel tempo non erano ancora disponibili).
L’argomento è di notevole importanza clinica e le informazioni in proposito derivano solo da meta-analisi, sul cui esito Journal Map ha già dedicato spazio e commenti.

LEGGI TUTTO »

Doppia terapia antiaggregante abbreviata a un mese in pazienti con alto rischio emorragico sottoposti a impianto di stent

La durata della doppia terapia antiaggregante (DAPT), dopo angioplastica coronarica percutanea (PCI) con impianto di stent medicato (DES) in pazienti ad alto rischio emorragico è da tempo oggetto di controversia. La tendenza attuale è di ridurre la DAPT al minimo indispensabile per diminuire il rischio di eventi emorragici, senza tuttavia incrementare il rischio di eventi ischemici. Le Linee Guida della Società Europea di Cardiologia (ESC), nei pazienti con sindrome coronarica acuta senza sopraslivellamento del tratto ST (NSTE-ACS), indicano in 3 mesi la durata della DAPT quando il rischio di bleeding è elevato, mentre nei pazienti in terapia anticoagulante la DAPT dovrebbe terminare dopo la degenza ospedaliera, oppure protrarsi per 1 mese nel caso sussista un rischio ischemico elevato ((The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2020; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ ehaa575.)). Tuttavia queste indicazioni potrebbero essere in rapida evoluzione man mano che si aggiungono nuovi contributi della letteratura.

LEGGI TUTTO »
Cerca un articolo
Gli articoli più letti
Rubriche
Leggi i tuoi articoli salvati
La tua lista è vuota