In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

Dual antiplatelet therapy for the general cardiologist: recent evidence, balancing ischaemic and bleeding risk

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the mainstay treatment following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) to reduce stent thrombosis and target lesion failure. However, this benefit is intrinsically associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Against this background, novel antithrombotic strategies have been developed to achieve a balance between the individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding through the modulation of DAPT duration (short or prolonged treatment) and composition (clopidogrel or a potent P2Y12 inhibitor). Associated therapeutic options involve the type of antiplatelet monotherapy following DAPT discontinuation (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor) and dual pathway inhibition (antiplatelet agents combined with low-dose oral anticoagulation).

Interventional Cardiology


Keywords

aspirin, bleeding, dual antiplatelet therapy, P2Y12 inhibitor, thrombosis

 

Take-home messages

  • The net benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy depends on the balance between the individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding
  • Current European guidelines recommend for most patients undergoing PCI with DES implantation a period of DAPT of six months with aspirin and clopidogrel if the index clinical presentation is a chronic coronary syndrome and 12 months with aspirin and ticagrelor or prasugrel if an acute coronary syndrome (ACS)
  • Advances in DES technology and PCI optimisation have substantially reduced the risk of target lesion failure and several recent randomised trials have shown that 1-3 months of DAPT can be sufficient
  • In the setting of ACS, DAPT de-escalation is a viable alternative to short DAPT duration
  • There is still uncertainty about the preferred antithrombotic monotherapy after DAPT, with recent data indicating a possible advantage of using a P2Y12 inhibitor over the traditional therapy with aspirin
  • Patients with high thrombotic risk may benefit from prolonged DAPT and potent P2Y12 inhibitors

 

Dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), consisting of the combination of aspirin and an oral inhibitor of the platelet P2Y12 receptor for adenosine 5’-diphosphate (ADP), is the mainstay treatment following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) to prevent thrombotic events, particularly those that may occur at the site of the target lesion [1,2]. Over the past three decades, several investigations have tested new antithrombotic strategies that have progressively shaped and prompted revisions in clinical practice [1-5].

In the period following the introduction of DAPT following PCI, the limited amount of evidence along with the concerns arising from the experience with early-generation DES draw attention to the feared complication of stent thrombosis. As the field progressed with the development of highly biocompatible DES and the employment of intravascular imaging guidance and stenting optimisation techniques, a growing recognition emerged regarding the prognostic significance of bleeding events during DAPT [1-8]. Major or life-threatening bleeding events were detrimental to patient outcomes, underscoring the crucial interplay between ischaemic and haemorrhagic risks in determining the net effect of DAPT [1-8]. In recent years, an equipoise between the pursuit of more potent antithrombotic protection and a more favourable safety profile has been reached [1-8].

Against this background, novel antithrombotic strategies have been developed, aiming to achieve a balance between the individual risks of thrombosis and bleeding through the modulation of DAPT duration (short or prolonged treatment) and composition (clopidogrel or a potent P2Y12 inhibitor) [1-8]. Associated therapeutic options involve the type of antiplatelet monotherapy following DAPT discontinuation (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor) and dual pathway inhibition (antiplatelet agents combined with low-dose oral anticoagulation) [1-8].

Ischaemic risk

The clinical presentation is a critical factor to consider in the assessment of the individual ischaemic risk profile. In addition to the pattern of coronary artery disease and the complexity of percutaneous coronary intervention, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) inherently has a higher ischaemic risk compared to chronic coronary syndrome [1].

Over the past four decades, endovascular devices and interventional techniques have undergone an extraordinary evolution, enabling the treatment of increasingly complex patterns of coronary artery disease as well as challenging patient populations [9]. Clinical and angiographic characteristics associated with a higher risk of thrombotic events need to be considered when evaluating the type and duration of antiplatelet therapy [9]. These considerations refer not only to DAPT following PCI but also to chronic maintenance antiplatelet therapy in the long-term period [9]. The thrombotic risk stratification aids in identifying patients who would benefit from intensified antithrombotic treatment following standard DAPT duration (Table 1).

 

Table 1. Higher thrombotic risk conditions.

Higher Thrombotic Risk
Diabetes
History of recurrent myocardial infarction
History of recurrent percutaneous coronary intervention
History of coronary artery bypass grafting failure
History of stroke
History of stent thrombosis during antiplatelet therapy
Significant carotid artery disease
Critical lower limb ischaemia
Premature or accelerated coronary artery disease
Moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease
Concomitant systemic inflammatory disease
Three-vessel disease
At least three lesions treated
At least three stents implanted
Total stent length >60mm
Treatment of the left main coronary artery
Treatment of a bifurcation with a two-stent technique
Treatment of chronic total occlusion
Stenting in the last remaining vessel

 

  • Clinical characteristics: elder age, diabetes mellitus, current smoking, moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, previous myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis, multivascular atherosclerotic disease, etc.
  • Procedural characteristics: implantation of three or more stents, treatment of three or more lesions, multivessel coronary artery disease, stenting of the last remaining patent coronary artery, treatment of the left main coronary artery, treatment of bifurcation disease with two stents, treatment of chronic total occlusion, stented length >60 mm, and mainly suboptimal results of PCI (stent malapposition, stent underexpansion, residual dissection, etc.).

Bleeding risk

The considerable drawback of DAPT, in terms of bleeding, is particularly influential in high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients, as this subset of patients not only encounters a higher frequency of bleeding events but also exhibits a notable prevalence of complex coronary artery disease [10,11].

A number of risk models have been developed to identify the patients with a higher likelihood of experiencing thrombotic and bleeding events at long-term follow-up. The PRECISE-DAPT score is a 5-item (age, creatinine clearance, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, and previous spontaneous bleeding) bleeding risk prediction, developed to predict the risk of out-of-hospital bleeding within one year following PCI [11]. In contrast, the DAPT score predicts the risk-benefit ratio of extending DAPT beyond 12 months after PCI in patients without indications for oral anticoagulation and prior major bleeding on DAPT [12]. Although employment of these tools is considered by guidelines, the class of recommendation is low [1,9].

The current standpoint emphasises that customisation of DAPT following PCI relies on the comprehensive assessment of patients with a weighing of those conditions that increase the risk of ischaemic and bleeding events [1,9,10]. Recently, the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) introduced standardised definitions for HBR in patients undergoing PCI, based on clinical consensus and a review of the existing literature [10]. According to this semi-quantitative scoring system, HBR is defined as a BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk of at least 4% at one year or an intracranial haemorrhage risk of at least 1% at one year [10]. The ARC-HBR includes 20 clinical criteria (14 major, 6 minor) that incorporate the risk factors for HBR based on various risk prediction models [10]. Accordingly, patients are considered at HBR if they meet at least one major or two minor criteria (Table 2) [10].

 

Table 2. Major and minor criteria of HBR.

Major Minor
At least 1 criterion At least 2 criteria
Anticipated use of long-term oral anticoagulation Age ≥75 y
Severe or end-stage chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) Moderate chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30–59 mL/min/1.73 m2)
Haemoglobin <11 g/dL Haemoglobin <11 g/dL of haemoglobin 11–12.9 g/dL for men and 11–11.9 g/dL for women
Spontaneous bleeding requiring hospitalisation or transfusion in the past 6 months or at any time, if recurrent Spontaneous bleeding requiring hospitalisation or transfusion within the past 12 months not meeting the major criterion
Moderate or severe baseline thrombocytopenia (platelet count <100 x 109/L) Long-term use of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or steroids
Chronic bleeding diathesis Any ischaemic stroke at any time not meeting the major criterion
Liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension  
Active malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) within the past 12 months  
Previous spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage  
Previous traumatic haemorrhage within the past 12 months  
Presence of a brain arteriovenous malformation  
Moderate or severe ischaemic stroke within the past 6 months  
Recent major surgery or major trauma within 30 days before PCI  

PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention

Potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy

Regardless of the performance of revascularisation (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting), the primary strategy to reduce the occurrence of ischaemic events among patients with ACS is to use DAPT with potent P2Y12 inhibitors (ticagrelor or prasugrel) rather than clopidogrel [1]. To this extent, prasugrel and ticagrelor are superior to clopidogrel in patients with ACS [1].

Ticagrelor, an oral cyclopentyl triazolopyrimidine, is a reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist [13]. Ticagrelor is an active drug that produces a potent and predictable platelet inhibition over clopidogrel [13]. The PLATO trial enrolled 18,624 patients with ACS with or without ST-segment elevation to either ticagrelor or clopidogrel [13]. At 12 months, ticagrelor significantly reduced the incidence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with clopidogrel (9.8% vs. 11.7; hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-0.92; p<0.001) but was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%; HR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02-1.38; p=0.03) [13].

Prasugrel is an oral thienopyridine, like clopidogrel, but its biotransformation into the active metabolite is substantially more efficient [14]. Therefore, prasugrel produces a more potent and predictable degree of platelet inhibition than clopidogrel [14]. The TRITON–TIMI 38 trial enrolled 13,608 patients with moderate- or high-risk ACS undergoing treatment with PCI randomly assigned to prasugrel or clopidogrel [14]. Prasugrel significantly reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared to clopidogrel (9.9% vs 12.1%; HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73 0.90; p<0.001) but was associated with a significant increase in the bleeding events (2.4% vs 1.8%; HR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03-1.68; p=0.03) [14].

In patients taking an oral anticoagulant, the use of clopidogrel seems to be preferred over ticagrelor or prasugrel, especially in the presence of HBR conditions, for the increased occurrence of bleeding associated with a potent P2Y12-based triple antithrombotic therapy [1].

In the context of a paucity of head-to-head comparisons between potent P2Y12 inhibitors, the ISAR-REACT 5 trial has recently indicated that, in the absence of major contraindications, prasugrel should be preferred over ticagrelor due to a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (6.9% vs 9.3%; HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59-0.91; p=0.006) without an increase in major bleeding (4.8% vs 5.4%; HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.66-1.20; p=0.46) [15].

Studies have compared clopidogrel against potent P2Y12 inhibitors but failed to demonstrate a clear net clinical benefit mainly due to an increase in bleeding complications [1,9]. For this reason, clopidogrel remains the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor in combination with aspirin for elective PCI with a suggested DAPT duration of six months [1,9]. However, non-complex PCI associated with a reasonable ischaemic risk profile and the absence of substantial residual coronary artery disease can safely be handled with shorter DAPT durations. Similarly, in the presence of HBR conditions, shorter DAPT duration may be considered [1,9].

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration

Current European guidelines recommend for most patients undergoing PCI with DES implantation ‒ in the absence of high bleeding risk (HBR), indications for oral anticoagulation, or ischaemic risk exceeding the individual propensity to bleed ‒ a period of DAPT of six months with aspirin and clopidogrel if the index clinical presentation is a chronic coronary syndrome and 12 months with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (i.e., ticagrelor or prasugrel) if an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) [1,9].

The rationale for a short DAPT duration derives from the consideration that the highest risk of stent thrombosis manifests within the initial 30 days following PCI, while the bleeding risk associated with DAPT remains relatively constant throughout the duration of the treatment [1,3]. The development of highly biocompatible DES, along with the employment of stenting optimisation techniques and intravascular imaging because of a deeper understanding of the major mechanisms leading to target lesion failure, have provided the conditions for shortening DAPT [1,9]. Multiple recent trials comparing different DAPT duration have generally not shown an excess of ischaemic events with shorter DAPT (Table 3) [3-5]. In all the trials with non-inferiority design, the primary endpoint was met except for the STOPDAPT-2 ACS, and in almost all the available trials, the individual key ischaemic outcomes were not significantly different between DAPT durations [3-5,16]. In some trials, prolonged DAPT was associated with a higher occurrence of clinically relevant non-major or major bleeding. Notably, the TWILIGHT trial showed in 7,119 patients the superiority of three months of DAPT compared with 15 months of DAPT in terms of clinically relevant non-major or major bleeding [17].

 

Table 3. Studies investigating short DAPT durations.

    Sample Size ACS (%) Design Primary Endpoint Main Result Additional key findings

6 vs ≥12 month

EXCELLENT 1,443 51.6 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularisation

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and bleeding outcomes 
PRODIGY 1,970 74.4 Superiority of prolonged DAPT compared with short DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Superiority was not demonstrated No significant differences in ischaemic outcomes and significant reductions in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and major bleeding
SECURITY 1,399 38.4 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, or BARC type 3 or 5

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes 
ISAR-SAFE 4,000 40.6 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

 Death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, or TIMI major bleeding 

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
ITALIC 1,822 23.5 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, emergency target vessel revascularisation, stroke, or TIMI major bleeding

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
NIPPON 3,307 32.6 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

 Death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, and REPLACE-2 major bleeding events 

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
OPTIMA-C 1,367 50.6 Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
IVUS-XPL 1,400

49.0

Significant difference between DAPT duration

Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or TIMI major bleeding

DAPT durations were not significantly different No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
I-LOVE-IT 2 1,829

81.8

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
DAPT-STEMI 870

100

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, stroke, or TIMI major bleeding

Non-inferiority was demonstrated No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes
SMART-DATE 2,712

100

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

Myocardial infarction significantly more frequent in the short DAPT group

No significant differences in other individual and composite outcomes

4 vs ≥12 month

IDEAL-LM 818

40.5

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

Clinically significant bleeding and BARC major bleeding significantly less frequent in the short DAPT group

No significant differences in composite and individual ischaemic endpoints

3 vs ≥12 month

RESET

2,117

54.6

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiovascular cause, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or bleeding

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

OPTIMISE

3,119

37.1

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding (study-specific definition)

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

REDUCE

1,496

100

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularisation, or BARC 2-5 bleeding

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

SMART-CHOICE

2,993

58.2

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

All-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

TWILIGHT

7,119

64.8

Superiority of short DAPT compared with prolonged DAPT

BARC 2, 3, or 5

Superiority was demonstrated

Major bleeding significantly less frequent in the short DAPT group

No significant differences in major composite and individual ischaemic outcomes

TICO

3,056

100

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

 Death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, target vessel revascularisation, or TIMI major bleeding 

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

Clinically significant bleeding and TIMI major bleeding significantly less frequent in the short DAPT group

No significant differences in major composite and individual ischaemic outcomes

1 vs ≥12 months

GLOBAL LEADERS

15,968

 

Superiority of short DAPT compared with prolonged DAPT

Death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction

Superiority was not demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

STOPDAPT-2

3,009

38.2

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or TIMI bleeding

Non-inferiority was demonstrated

Clinically significant and major bleeding were significantly less frequent in the short DAPT group

No significant differences in major composite and individual ischaemic outcomes

STOPDAPT-2 ACS

4,136*

100

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or TIMI bleeding

Non-inferiority was not demonstrated

Myocardial infarction and non-target lesion revascularisation more frequent in the short DAPT group

1 vs 6-12 months

One-Month DAPT

3,020

39.5

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT

Cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, stroke, or STEEPLE major bleeding

Non-inferiority was not demonstrated

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

1 vs 3-6 months**

MASTER-DAPT

4,579

48.3

Non-inferiority of short DAPT compared with standard DAPT for the net composite cardiovascular endpoint and major cardiovascular events, and superiority for BARC 2, 3, or 5

Net adverse clinical events: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or BARC 3 or 5

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: death, myocardial infarction, stroke

 

BARC 2, 3 or 5

Non-inferiority of the first two hierarchical hypotheses was demonstrated;

Superiority of the last hierarchical hypothesis was conducted.

No significant differences in composite and individual endpoints, including major ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes

BARC: Bleeding Academic Research Consortium; DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy; TIMI: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction

*1161 patients from the STOPDAPT-2 trial.

** 3 months in patients with indications for oral anticoagulation.

 

Despite this substantial body of evidence, several factors continue to influence current guidelines. Firstly, there is a lack of randomised trials with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the rare individual endpoints of stent thrombosis and major bleeding [4-6]. Secondly, a reduction in major bleeding associated with short DAPT was inconsistently observed across trials and, in the trials indicating a significant reduction in major bleeding, there was no improvement in survival [4-6]. Thirdly, a few trials (SMART-DATE and STOPDAPT-2 ACS) have shown an excess of myocardial infarction in patients assigned to short DAPT [16,18]. Although the explanation remains unclear, these results raised concerns. Fourthly, significant heterogeneity exists in the antithrombotic strategies employed in terms of DAPT duration and composition as well as in the type of antiplatelet monotherapy following DAPT discontinuation [3-5]. Finally, the available evidence is dispersed among various target populations and based on outcomes assessed according to different definitions [3-5].

Based on studies that validated the ARC-HBR bleeding risk criteria, significant proportions of patients undergoing PCI present with HBR [19]. This group of patients gains a lower net benefit from prolonged DAPT durations as indicated in the recent MASTER-DAPT trial, in which HBR patients were randomly assigned, one month after PCI, to a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, to DAPT discontinuation (i.e., one month of DAPT) or DAPT continuation for two to five additional months, depending on the need for oral anticoagulation [20]. At one year, the three ranked hypotheses were all met since abbreviated DAPT was non-inferior to standard DAPT with respect to a net composite endpoint (7.5% vs 7.7%; HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.78-1.20; pnoninferiority<0.001) as well as a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (6.1% vs 5.9%; HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.80-1.30; pnoninferiority<0.001), and superior with respect to clinically relevant non-major or major bleeding (6.4% vs 9.2%; HR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.85; p<0.001) [20].

In contrast to the patients with predominant HBR, patients with chronic high ischaemic risk conditions (e.g., diabetes, chronic kidney disease, etc.), recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat myocardial revascularisation (e.g., multiple PCI following coronary artery bypass graft failure), and evidence of significant extracardiac vascular disease (e.g., cerebrovascular accident, carotid artery disease requiring intervention, peripheral artery disease requiring intervention, aortic disease, etc.) may benefit from extended DAPT, especially those without significant HBR and good tolerance to DAPT during treatment (Table 4) [1,6,9]. The DAPT trial was the first study designed to specially assess the safety and efficacy of prolonged DAPT [21]. A total of 9,961 patients were enrolled after PCI with DES and randomised to placebo (DAPT discontinuation) or DAPT prolongation after completion without events of 12 months of DAPT [21]. Prolonging DAPT, compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs 1.4%; HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17-0.48; p<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular events (4.3% vs 5.9%; HR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.85; p<0.001), but GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding was increased (2.5% vs 1.6%; p=0.001) [21]. However, except for the DAPT trial, smaller available trials testing prolonged DAPT after PCI did not show consistent improvements [3,5].

 

Table 4. Selected studies focused on minimizing the risk of thrombosis.

Trial Sample size Setting Treatment arm Primary endpoint Results
PLATO 18,624 ACS Aspirin + Ticagrelor vs Aspirin + Clopidogrel Cardiovascular death myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months

9.8% vs. 11.7%

HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.92; p<0.001
TRITON-TIMI 38 13,608 ACS patients undergoing PCI Aspirin + Prasugrel vs Aspirin + Clopidogrel Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 14.5 months

9.9% vs. 12.1%

HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; p<0.001
DAPT 9,961 Patients treated with PCI who completed 1year of DAPT Aspirin + Clopidogrel or Prasugrel vs Aspirin + Placebo Stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 18 months

-Stent thrombosis: 0.4% vs. 1.4%

HR 0.29 95% CI: 0.17-0.48; p<0.001

-Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: 4.3% vs. 5.9%

HR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.85; p<0.001

PEGASUS-TIMI 54 21,162 Patients with prior myocardial infarction who completed 1 year of DAPT Aspirin + ticagrelor 60 mg BID vs Aspirin + ticagrelor 60-mg BID vs Aspirin + Placebo Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at a median of 33 months

9.2% vs. 10.1%

HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.97; p=0.002

THEMIS-PCI 11,154 Diabetic patients with prior PCI

Aspirin + Ticagrelor 60 mg BID vs

Aspirin + Placebo
Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at a median of 3.3 years

7.3% vs. 8.6%

HR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; p=0.013

ATLAS ACS 2 15,526 Recent ACS

Rivaroxaban 2.5-mg BID vs Rivaroxaban 5 mg BID vs. Placebo

Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at a mean of 13 months

8.9% vs. 10.7%

HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96; p=0.008

COMPASS 27,395 Stable coronary artery disease

Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg + Aspirin vs Rivaroxaban 5 mg BID vs. Aspirin 100 mg

Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at a mean of 23 months

4.1% vs. 5.4%

HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86; p<0.001

ACS: acute coronary syndrome; CI: confidence interval; DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy; HR: hazard ratio; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention

 

Some alternative long-term strategies have been tested with favourable results [22]. In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, 21,162 patients with prior myocardial infarction who completed 12 months of DAPT were randomised to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily, or placebo on a background of aspirin for a median of 33 months [22]. Prolonging DAPT with ticagrelor, compared to placebo, significantly reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint (ticagrelor 90 mg vs placebo, HR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.75-0.96; p=0.008 and ticagrelor 60 mg vs placebo, HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.95; p=0.004) [22]. The rates of major bleeding were higher with ticagrelor than with placebo (90 mg, 2.60%; 60 mg, 2.30%; placebo, 1.06%; p<0.001 for each dose vs placebo) [22].

The THEMIS trial was a placebo-controlled, randomised trial evaluating the role of ticagrelor in preventing ischaemic events in patients with stable CAD and diabetes with or without previous PCI [23]. A total of 11,154 patients aged 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes with stable CAD, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria (history of previous PCI, history of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery) were randomised to ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin [23]. At a median of 3.3 years, ticagrelor reduced the incidence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with placebo (7.3% vs. 8.6%; HR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; p=0.013) but increased the rate of major bleeding (2.0% vs. 1.1%; HR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.48-2.76; p< 0.0001) [23]. The benefit was present regardless of time from the most recent PCI [23].

Dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor monotherapy

Aspirin has been used for decades as an antiplatelet monotherapy during chronic maintenance in patients who undergo coronary stenting [24]. However, the status quo has been challenged recently in the HOST-EXAM trial (Table 4), in which 5,530 patients receiving DAPT for 6-18 months after PCI with DES without clinical events were randomly assigned to aspirin or clopidogrel for an additional 24 months [24]. At 24 months, clopidogrel monotherapy reduced the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission for ACS, and BARC 3-5 bleeding compared to aspirin monotherapy (5.7% vs 7.7%; HR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.90; p=0.0035) as a result of a reduction in both major adverse cardiovascular events (3.7% vs 5.5%; p=0.003) and BARC major bleeding (1.2% vs 2.0%; p=0.035) [24].

However, there is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between aspirin and P2Y12 in the period following PCI [4]. In recent years, several trials compared one to three months of DAPT followed by a P2Y12  inhibitor with 12-15 months of DAPT [4]. In a meta-analysis of these trials including 32,145 patients, major bleeding was significantly lower in the patients assigned to short DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with those assigned to 12-month DAPT, while no significant differences between groups were observed in terms of stent thrombosis, death, myocardial infarction, and stroke [4]. However, after adding the group of trials comparing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by aspirin monotherapy with 12 months of DAPT, for each endpoint, there was no treatment-by-subgroup interaction with the group of trials comparing ≤3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 monotherapy with 12 months of DAPT [4].

Dual antiplatelet therapy switch

DAPT de-escalation involves switching from a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor (i.e., ticagrelor or prasugrel) to a less potent P2Y12 inhibitor (i.e., clopidogrel) to ensure more potent platelet inhibition in the initial period following PCI, when the thrombotic risk is higher and stents are not adequately endothelialised, and minimise the risk of bleeding in the subsequent months, when the need for potent platelet inhibition decreases [3]. Among the trials supporting DAPT de-escalation, TROPICAL-ACS demonstrated that DAPT de-escalation is non-inferior to prasugrel-based DAPT in terms of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or BARC 2-5 (7% vs 9%; HR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.62-1.06; pnoninferiority=0.0004, psuperiority=0.12) [25].

Conversely, DAPT escalation can be defined as the switch from a less potent P2Y12 inhibitor (i.e., clopidogrel) to a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor (i.e., ticagrelor or prasugrel). This therapeutic decision is generally based on the observation of a coronary thrombotic event during DAPT with clopidogrel or the detection of resistance to clopidogrel [3].

Different tools can guide the selection of patients in which an escalation or de-escalation can be of clinical benefit. In particular, the use of platelet function tests can detect patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity and cytochrome P450 2C19 genotyping can identify those with loss-of-function alleles that carry an increased risk of ischaemic events when treated with clopidogrel. Several studies have assessed the role of guided escalation or de-escalation using platelet function tests or genotyping with mixed results [3]. A meta-analysis of randomised trials and observational studies suggested that guided escalation may be associated with a significant reduction in ischaemic events without any trade-off in safety [6].

Dual pathway inhibition

Dual pathway inhibition involves the simultaneous blockade of two pathways of thrombus formation to gain synergistic benefits, thus it differs from DAPT due to the combination of an anticoagulant, usually a direct factor Xa inhibitor, with a single antiplatelet agent (Table 4) [22,26].

In ACS patients, dual pathway inhibition was tested in the ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial in which 15,526 patients were randomised to receive twice-daily doses of either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of rivaroxaban or placebo [26]. At a mean of 13 months, as compared with placebo, rivaroxaban significantly reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (8.9% vs 10.7%; HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96; p=0.008), with significant improvement for both the twice-daily 2.5 mg dose (9.1% vs 10.7%; p=0.02) and the twice-daily 5 mg dose (8.8% vs 10.7%; p=0.03) [26]. However, rivaroxaban was associated with higher rates of major bleeding compared to placebo (2.1% vs 0.6%; p<0.001), including intracranial haemorrhage (0.6% vs 0.2%; p=0.009), without a significant increase in fatal bleeding [26]. The 2.5 mg twice-daily dose resulted in fewer fatal bleeding events than the 5 mg twice-daily dose (0.1% vs 0.4%; p=0.04) [26].

In stable coronary artery disease, dual pathway inhibition was tested in the COMPASS trial, in which a total of 27,395 patients were randomised to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or placebo plus aspirin 100 mg once daily [22]. At a mean of 23 months, the incidence of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was lower in the rivaroxaban plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (4.1% vs 5.4%; HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86; p<0.001), but there were more major bleeding events in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (3.1% vs 1.9%; HR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.40-2.05; p<0.001) [22]. The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group [22].

Conclusions

DAPT and antithrombotic strategies are a crucial component in the management of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI, as they help to prevent both local and systemic ischaemic thrombotic complications. Over the past three decades, several antithrombotic strategies involving aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors have been developed and implemented in clinical practice with different objectives and results. The current standpoint is that the highest benefit from available strategies is achieved after accounting for the individual trade-off between thrombotic prevention and bleeding occurrence. Tailoring the intensity and duration of aspirin and P2Y12 inhibiting therapy to reduce the risk of ischaemic complications while minimising the risk of bleeding is crucial. Effective strategies to mitigate the risk of bleeding include shortening the duration of DAPT, with early aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, and DAPT de-escalation. In patients at increased ischaemic risk and without HBR, prolonging intensified antithrombotic therapy either by means of DAPT or dual pathway inhibition may be effective at the cost of a higher likelihood of bleeding events.

References


  1. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, Collet JP, Costa F, Jeppsson A, Jüni P, Kastrati A, Kolh P, Mauri L, Montalescot G, Neumann FJ, Petricevic M, Roffi M, Steg PG, Windecker S, Zamorano JL, Levine GN; ESC Scientific Document Group; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG); ESC National Cardiac Societies. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213-60. 
  2. Cao D, Chandiramani R, Chiarito M, Claessen BE, Mehran R. Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey. Eur Heart J. 2020;42:339-51.
  3. Angiolillo DA, Galli M, Collet JP., Kastrati A, O’Donoghue ML. Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2022;17:e1371-e1396. 
  4. Giacoppo D, Matsuda Y, Fovino LN, D’Amico G, Gargiulo G, Byrne RA, Capodanno D, Valgimigli M, Mehran R, Tarantini G. 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 clinical trials. Eur Heart J. 2021;42:308-19. 
  5. Yin SH, Xu P, Wang B, Lu Y, Wu QY, Zhou ML, Wu JR, Cai JJ, Sun X, Yuan H. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;365:l2222. 
  6. Galli M, Benenati S, Capodanno D, Franchi F, Rollini F, D'Amario D, Porto I, Angiolillo DJ. Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Lancet. 2021;397:1470-83. 
  7. Capodanno D, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM, James S, Kimura T, Mehran R, Rao SV, Steg PG, Urban P, Valgimigli M, Windecker S, Angiolillo DJ. Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2022;19:117-32. 
  8. Capodanno D, Bhatt DL, Eikelboom JW, Fox KAA, Geisler T, Michael Gibson C, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, James S, Lopes RD, Mehran R, Montalescot G, Patel M, Steg PG, Storey RF, Vranckx P, Weitz JI, Welsh R, Zeymer U, Angiolillo DJ. Dual-pathway inhibition for secondary and tertiary antithrombotic prevention in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2020;17:242-57. 
  9. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, Byrne RA, Collet JP, Falk V, Head SJ, Jüni P, Kastrati A, Koller A, Kristensen SD, Niebauer J, Richter DJ, Seferovic PM, Sibbing D, Stefanini GG, Windecker S, Yadav R, Zembala MO; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87-165. 
  10. Urban P, Mehran R, Colleran R, Angiolillo DJ, Byrne RA, Capodanno D, Cuisset T, Cutlip D, Eerdmans P, Eikelboom J, Farb A, Gibson CM, Gregson J, Haude M, James SK, Kim HS, Kimura T, Konishi A, Laschinger J, Leon MB, Magee PFA, Mitsutake Y, Mylotte D, Pocock S, Price MJ, Rao SV, Spitzer E, Stockbridge N, Valgimigli M, Varenne O, Windhoevel U, Yeh RW, Krucoff MW, Morice MC. Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2632-53. 
  11. Costa F, van Klaveren D, James S, Heg D, Räber L, Feres F, Pilgrim T, Hong MK, Kim HS, Colombo A, Steg PG, Zanchin T, Palmerini T, Wallentin L, Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Windecker S, Steyerberg EW, Valgimigli M; PRECISE-DAPT Study Investigators. Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet. 2017;389:1025-34. 
  12. Yeh RW, Secemsky EA, Kereiakes DJ, Normand SL, Gershlick AH, Cohen DJ, Spertus JA, Steg PG, Cutlip DE, Rinaldi MJ, Camenzind E, Wijns W, Apruzzese PK, Song Y, Massaro JM, Mauri L; DAPT Study Investigators. Development and validation of a prediction rule for benefit and harm of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2016;315:1735-49. 
  13. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Held C, Horrow J, Husted S, James S, Katus H, Mahaffey KW, Scirica BM, Skene A, Steg PG, Storey RF, Harrington RA; PLATO Investigators; Freij A, Thorsén M. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1045-57. 
  14. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM; TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001-15. 
  15. Schüpke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M, Mayer K, Bernlochner I, Wöhrle J, Richardt G, Liebetrau C, Witzenbichler B, Antoniucci D, Akin I, Bott-Flügel L, Fischer M, Landmesser U, Katus HA, Sibbing D, Seyfarth M, Janisch M, Boncompagni D, Hilz R, Rottbauer W, Okrojek R, Möllmann H, Hochholzer W, Migliorini A, Cassese S, Mollo P, Xhepa E, Kufner S, Strehle A, Leggewie S, Allali A, Ndrepepa G, Schühlen H, Angiolillo DJ, Hamm CW, Hapfelmeier A, Tölg R, Trenk D, Schunkert H, Laugwitz KL, Kastrati A; ISAR-REACT 5 Trial Investigators. Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1524-34. 
  16. Watanabe H, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M, Yamamoto K, Obayashi Y, Ogita M, Suwa S, Isawa T, Domei T, Yamaji K, Tatsushima S, Watanabe H, Ohya M, Tokuyama H, Tada T, Sakamoto H, Mori H, Suzuki H, Nishikura T, Wakabayashi K, Hibi K, Abe M, Kawai K, Nakao K, Ando K, Tanabe K, Ikari Y, Morino Y, Kadota K, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kimura T; STOPDAPT-2 ACS Investigators. Comparison of Clopidogrel Monotherapy After 1 to 2 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With 12 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: The STOPDAPT-2 ACS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7:407-17. 
  17. Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, Cohen DJ, Angiolillo DJ, Briguori C, Cha JY, Collier T, Dangas G, Dudek D, Džavík V, Escaned J, Gil R, Gurbel P, Hamm CW, Henry T, Huber K, Kastrati A, Kaul U, Kornowski R, Krucoff M, Kunadian V, Marx SO, Mehta SR, Moliterno D, Ohman EM, Oldroyd K, Sardella G, Sartori S, Shlofmitz R, Steg PG, Weisz G, Witzenbichler B, Han YL, Pocock S, Gibson CM. Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2032-42. 
  18. Hahn JY, Song YB, Oh JH, Cho DK, Lee JB, Doh JH, Kim SH, Jeong JO, Bae JH, Kim BO, Cho JH, Suh IW, Kim DI, Park HK, Park JS, Choi WG, Lee WS, Kim J, Choi KH, Park TK, Lee JM, Yang JH, Choi JH, Choi SH, Gwon HC; SMART-DATE investigators. 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. 
  19. Ueki Y, Bär S, Losdat S, Otsuka T, Zanchin C, Zanchin T, Gragnano F, Gargiulo G, Siontis GCM, Praz F, Lanz J, Hunziker L, Stortecky S, Pilgrim T, Heg D, Valgimigli M, Windecker S, Räber L. Validation of the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and comparison with contemporary bleeding risk scores. EuroInterv. 2020;16:371-9. 
  20. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Heg D, Tijssen J, Jüni P, Vranckx P, Ozaki Y, Morice MC, Chevalier B, Onuma Y, Windecker S, Tonino PAL, Roffi M, Lesiak M, Mahfoud F, Bartunek J, Hildick-Smith D, Colombo A, Stanković G, Iñiguez A, Schultz C, Kornowski R, Ong PJL, Alasnag M, Rodriguez AE, Moschovitis A, Laanmets P, Donahue M, Leonardi S, Smits PC; MASTER DAPT Investigators. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1643-55. 
  21. Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Driscoll-Shempp P, Cutlip DE, Steg PG, Normand SL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, Cohen DJ, Holmes DR Jr, Krucoff MW, Hermiller J, Dauerman HL, Simon DI, Kandzari DE, Garratt KN, Lee DP, Pow TK, Ver Lee P, Rinaldi MJ, Massaro JM; DAPT Study Investigators. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2155-66. 
  22. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, Dagenais GR, Hart RG, Shestakovska O, Diaz R, Alings M, Lonn EM, Anand SS, Widimsky P, Hori M, Avezum A, Piegas LS, Branch KRH, Probstfield J, Bhatt DL, Zhu J, Liang Y, Maggioni AP, Lopez-Jaramillo P, O'Donnell M, Kakkar AK, Fox KAA, Parkhomenko AN, Ertl G, Störk S, Keltai M, Ryden L, Pogosova N, Dans AL, Lanas F, Commerford PJ, Torp-Pedersen C, Guzik TJ, Verhamme PB, Vinereanu D, Kim JH, Tonkin AM, Lewis BS, Felix C, Yusoff K, Steg PG, Metsarinne KP, Cook Bruns N, Misselwitz F, Chen E, Leong D, Yusuf S; COMPASS Investigators. Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1319-30. 
  23. Koo BK, Kang J, Park KW, Rhee TM, Yang HM, Won KB, Rha SW, Bae JW, Lee NH, Hur SH, Yoon J, Park TH, Kim BS, Lim SW, Cho YH, Jeon DW, Kim SH, Han JK, Shin ES, Kim HS; HOST-EXAM investigators. 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. 
  24. Steg PG, Bhatt DL, Simon T, Fox K, Mehta SR, Harrington RA, Held C, Andersson M, Himmelmann A, Ridderstråle W, Leonsson-Zachrisson M, Liu Y, Opolski G, Zateyshchikov D, Ge J, Nicolau JC, Corbalán R, Cornel JH, Widimský P, Leiter LA; THEMIS Steering Committee and Investigators. Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1309-20. 
  25. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Jacobshagen C, Gross L, Trenk D, Geisler T, Orban M, Hadamitzky M, Merkely B, Kiss RG, Komócsi A, Dézsi CA, Holdt L, Felix SB, Parma R, Klopotowski M, Schwinger RHG, Rieber J, Huber K, Neumann FJ, Koltowski L, Mehilli J, Huczek Z, Massberg S; TROPICAL-ACS Investigators. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS). Lancet. 2017;390:1747-57. 
  26. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, Bassand JP, Bhatt DL, Bode C, Burton P, Cohen M, Cook-Bruns N, Fox KA, Goto S, Murphy SA, Plotnikov AN, Schneider D, Sun X, Verheugt FW, Gibson CM; ATLAS ACS 2–TIMI 51 Investigators. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:9-19. 
  27. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, Dagenais GR, Hart RG, Shestakovska O, Diaz R, Alings M, Lonn EM, Anand SS, Widimsky P, Hori M, Avezum A, Piegas LS, Branch KRH, Probstfield J, Bhatt DL, Zhu J, Liang Y, Maggioni AP, Lopez-Jaramillo P, O'Donnell M, Kakkar AK, Fox KAA, Parkhomenko AN, Ertl G, Störk S, Keltai M, Ryden L, Pogosova N, Dans AL, Lanas F, Commerford PJ, Torp-Pedersen C, Guzik TJ, Verhamme PB, Vinereanu D, Kim JH, Tonkin AM, Lewis BS, Felix C, Yusoff K, Steg PG, Metsarinne KP, Cook Bruns N, Misselwitz F, Chen E, Leong D, Yusuf S; COMPASS Investigators. Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1319-30.

Notes to editor


Authors:

Luis Ortega-Paz1, MD, PhD; Aaysha Cader, MD, MSc2; Ignacio Cigalini3, MD; Daniele Giacoppo4, MD, MSc, PhD

  1. Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA;
  2. Division of Cardiology, Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital & Research Institute, Dhaka, Bangladesh;
  3. Division of Cardiology, Hospital Privado de Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina;
  4. Division of Cardiology, Policlinico “Rodolico-San Marco”, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

 

Address for correspondence:

Dr Daniele Giacoppo, Dipartimento di Chirurgia Generale e Specialità Medico-Chirurgiche, University of Catania,

via Santa Sofia 78, 95123, Catania, Italy

E-mail: giacoppomd@gmail.com

 

Author disclosures:

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

 

The content of this article reflects the personal opinion of the author/s and is not necessarily the official position of the European Society of Cardiology.