Next Article in Journal
Integrated Nurse-Led Oral Anticoagulation Management
Previous Article in Journal
Cavete Collegae
 
 
Cardiovascular Medicine is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Editores Medicorum Helveticorum (EMH).
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Stenting

by
Ronald K. Binder
1 and
Thomas F. Lüscher
1,2,*
1
University Heart Centre, Cardiology, Schlieren Campus, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
2
University Hospital Zurich and Center for Molecular Cardiology, Schlieren Campus, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cardiovasc. Med. 2015, 18(1), 3; https://doi.org/10.4414/cvm.2015.00308
Submission received: 21 October 2014 / Revised: 21 November 2014 / Accepted: 21 December 2014 / Published: 21 January 2015
With the introduction of coronary artery stenting in the mid 1980s [1,2] two new disease entities were born: coronary stent thrombosis (ST) [2] and coronary instent restenosis [3]. Whereas the latter was reduced by local antiproliferative drug delivery (drug eluting stents, DES) [4], the incidence of the former was decreased by administration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) [5,6,7] and better bicompatibility of newer generation DES [8].
Aher the roll-out of the first generation DES (Cypher® and Taxus®) an increased incidence of late and very late ST were observed in comparison with bare metal stents [9]. As DAPT reduces the risk of ST, guideline committees issued the arbitrary recommendation of 12 months DAPT aher DES placement, without evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
In the meantime, various RCTs, which aimed at answering the question of optimal DAPT duration, have been published (Figure 1). These trials have not been uniformly designed and compared various DAPT combinations and durations (e.g., 3, 6, 12, 24, 30 months) in diverse patient populations receiving different types and generations of DES [10,11,12,13]. Some trials investigated the noninferiority of less than 12 months DAPT, while others tested the benefit of DAPT prolongation beyond a year. As RCTs with less than 12 months of DAPT did not show a significant increase in ischaemic endpoints (Figure 1) and there were signals showing an increased risk of bleeding under prolonged DAPT (Figure 2), the European Society of Cardiology reduced the recommended DAPT duration to 6 months aher DES placement in patients with stable coronary artery disease [14].
Recently, the largest RCT in the field, the DAPT-trial, which compared 12 months versus 30 months DAPT aher coronary stent placement in more than 9,000 patients, was published [15]. The prolongation of DAPT to 30 months led to a significant decrease of the combined primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke compared with 12 months (4.3% vs 5.9%, p <0.001; Figure 1). Furthermore, the rate of ST was significantly reduced with 30 months DAPT (0.4% vs 1.4%, p <0.001). Of note, about half of the reduction in the primary endpoint could be attributed to a reduced incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction, which was unrelated to previous coronary interventions, but rather reflected the natural history of coronary atherosclerosis. However, moderate or severe bleeding was significantly, albeit moderately increased with prolonged DAPT (2.5% vs 1.6%, p = 0.001). Surprisingly, all-cause mortality between 12 and 33 months was somewhat higher with prolonged DAPT with borderline significance (2.3% vs 1.8%, p = 0.04). Although the investigators did not provide an analysis of a combined endpoint that incorporated ischaemic as well as haemorrhagic events, extrapolation of the data suggests a marginal clinical benefit of 30 months DAPT over 12 months DAPT (ARR 1.6% vs 0.9% increased bleeding). Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between different stent types for the primary endpoint. As there is no levelling off in the incidence of very late ST with first generation DES, patients who received a paclitaxel-eluting stent had the highest benefit from prolonged DAPT. The increased biocompatibility of second and third generation DES leads to faster and better endothelialisation, which is reflected by a reduced incidence of late and very late ST compared with first generation DES [16]. The least benefit from 30 months of DAPT was observed in recipients of everolimus-eluting stents. These results have once again heated the debate over the optimal duration of DAPT aher DES placement.
Patients have a unique and individual risk for ischaemic and haemorrhagic events. Antithrombotic therapy reduces the risk of atherothrombotic events, but increases bleeding rates. The therapeutic sweet spot between reduced ischaemia and increased bleeding markedly differs between patients. Risk factors for ST include changes in medication—most importantly the early discontinuation of DAPT—procedural issues (e.g., stent undersizing, incomplete stent expansion, incomplete apposition, inflow or outflow obstruction, persistent dissection, greater stent length, side branch stenting, overlapping stents, small vessel calibre, stent type) and patient characteristics (e.g., diabetes, acute coronary syndromes, leh ventricular dysfunction, malignancy, among others).
Risk factors for bleeding include pharmacological factors (extent of platelet inhibition, combination of DAPT with oral anticoagulation, duration of DAPT, concomitant use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors), procedural factors (e.g., femoral approach, large sheaths, no vascular closure device) and patient characteristics (e.g., age, weight, gender, bleeding history, gastrointestinal or liver disease, renal dysfunction, history of cerebrovascular accident, malignancy). The initiation of antithrombotic therapy may unmask previously subclinical bleeding diastasis (e.g., patients with gastroduodeal erosions, diverticulosis or occult malignancies). Whereas risk scores for the assessment of ischaemic events in atrial fibrillation (e.g., CHA2DS2– VASc) or for the assessment of bleeding events in acute coronary syndrome patients (e.g., CRUSADE bleeding score) are well established, there are currently no validated risk scores for the long term prediction of ischaemic or haemorrhagic events in patients on antiplatelet therapy aher coronary artery stent placement [17,18].
The currently available evidence speaks for individualising the duration of DAPT, taking the patient’s risk for ischaemic and haemorrhagic events into account (Figure 3). For example, a patient with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding and a short, large, newer generation DES in a simple coronary anatomy with little arteriosclerotic burden may benefit from a shortened DAPT duration of 6 months or less. A patient with a low bleeding risk, a complex coronary anatomy and DES placements in multiple arteries including long, overlapping stents in bifurcations or the leh main artery should be rather treated with prolonged DAPT of more than 12 months or maybe indefinitely. As very late ST is rare for newer generation DES, the prolongation of DAPT beyond 12 months should currently be based on the risk of bleeding and the risk of new ischaemic cerebrovascular events. Further research on antiplatelet medication aher DES focuses on assessment of different DAPT combinations, concomitant treatment with oral anticoagulants (e.g., PIONEER AFPCI trial, RE-DUAL PCI trial), on comparisons of longterm single antiplatelet regimes (e.g., GLOBAL LEADERS trial) and the validation of risk scores for prediction of bleeding and ischaemic events aher DES placement. Meanwhile, clinicians need to decide on a case-by-case basis on the optimal duration of DAPT aher DES placement taking all relevant patient and procedural factors that influence bleeding and thromboembolic risk into account [14]. At the same time, the changing landscape of scientific evidence and guideline recommendations should encourage anti-thrombotic management based on individualised clinical judgment

Funding/potential competing interests

RKB received speakers honoraria from AstraZeneca, is proctor for Boston Scientific and principal investigator for trials sponsored by Biotronik. TFL received educational and research grants or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daichi Sankyo Switzerland and Japan, Eli Lilly Switzerland and Indianapolis, USA, Medtronic and St. Jude.

References

  1. Serruys, P.W.; Strauss, B.H.; Beatt, K.J.; et al. Angiographic follow-up aher placement of a self-expanding coronary-artery stent. The New England journal of medicine 1991, 324, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sigwart, U.; Puel, J.; Mirkovitch, V.; Joffre, F.; Kappenberger, L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis aher transluminal angioplasty. The New England journal of medicine 1987, 316, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cassese, S.; Byrne, R.A.; Schulz, S.; et al. Prognostic role of restenosis in 10 004 patients undergoing routine control angiography aher coronary stenting. European heart journal 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Morice, M.C.; Serruys, P.W.; Sousa, J.E.; et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. The New England journal of medicine 2002, 346, 1773–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yusuf, S.; Zhao, F.; Mehta SRet, a.l. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The New England journal of medicine 2001, 345, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Wiviott, S.D.; Braunwald, E.; McCabe, C.H.; et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The New England journal of medicine 2007, 357, 2001–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wallentin, L.; Becker, R.C.; Budaj, A.; et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. The New England journal of medicine 2009, 361, 1045–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Windecker, S.; Serruys, P.W.; Wandel, S.; et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008, 372, 1163–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Daemen, J.; Wenaweser, P.; Tsuchida, K.; et al. Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study. Lancet 2007, 369, 667–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Feres, F.; Costa, R.A.; Abizaid, A.; et al. Three vs twelve months of dual antiplatelet therapy aher zotarolimus-eluting stents: the OPTIMIZE randomized trial. Jama 2013, 310, 2510–2522. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Gwon, H.C.; Hahn, J.Y.; Park, K.W.; et al. Six-month versus 12–month dual antiplatelet therapy aher implantation of drug-eluting stents: the Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss Aher Stenting (EXCELLENT) randomized, multicenter study. Circulation 2012, 125, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Valgimigli, M.; Campo, G.; Monti, M.; et al. Shortversus long-term duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy aher coronary stenting: a randomized multicenter trial. Circulation 2012, 125, 2015–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lee, C.W.; Ahn, J.M.; Park, D.W.; et al. Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy aher drug-eluting stent implantation: a randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2014, 129, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Authors/Task Force m Windecker, S.; Kolh, P.; et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). European heart journal 2014, 35, 2541–2619. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mauri, L.; Kereiakes, D.J.; Yeh, R.W.; et al. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy aher drug-eluting stents. The New England journal of medicine 2014, 371, 2155–2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Serruys, P.W.; Farooq, V.; Kalesan, B.; et al. Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5–year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial. JACC Cardiovascular interventions 2013, 6, 777–789. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Rao, S.V.; McCoy, L.A.; Spertus, J.A.; et al. An updated bleeding model to predict the risk of post-procedure bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a report using an expanded bleeding definition from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovascular interventions 2013, 6, 897–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jeger, R.V.; Pfisterer, M.E.; Sorensen, R.; et al. Tradeoff between bleeding and stent thrombosis in different dual antiplatelet therapy regimes: Importance of case fatality rates and effective treatment durations. American heart journal 2014, 168, 698–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Most randomized controlled trials comparing different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy did not show a significant difference in the composite primary endpoint. (DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy; MACCE = major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; MI = myocardial infarction; ST = stent thrombosis).
Figure 1. Most randomized controlled trials comparing different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy did not show a significant difference in the composite primary endpoint. (DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy; MACCE = major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; MI = myocardial infarction; ST = stent thrombosis).
Cardiovascmed 18 00003 g001
Figure 2. Bleeding events occurred more often during prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, reaching statistical significance in some trials. (DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy).
Figure 2. Bleeding events occurred more often during prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, reaching statistical significance in some trials. (DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy).
Cardiovascmed 18 00003 g002
Figure 3. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy based on individual risk.
Figure 3. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy based on individual risk.
Cardiovascmed 18 00003 g003

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Binder, R.K.; Lüscher, T.F. Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Stenting. Cardiovasc. Med. 2015, 18, 3. https://doi.org/10.4414/cvm.2015.00308

AMA Style

Binder RK, Lüscher TF. Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Stenting. Cardiovascular Medicine. 2015; 18(1):3. https://doi.org/10.4414/cvm.2015.00308

Chicago/Turabian Style

Binder, Ronald K., and Thomas F. Lüscher. 2015. "Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Stenting" Cardiovascular Medicine 18, no. 1: 3. https://doi.org/10.4414/cvm.2015.00308

APA Style

Binder, R. K., & Lüscher, T. F. (2015). Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Stenting. Cardiovascular Medicine, 18(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.4414/cvm.2015.00308

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop