2nd Department of Cardiology, Attikon University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Rimini 1, Chaidari, 12462, Athens, Greece.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2020 Oct;34(5):697-706. doi: 10.1007/s10557-020-07009-6.
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has long been considered a matter of controversy. Complex-PCI (C-PCI) is considered to be associated with an increased ischemic risk that tends to be greater with progressively higher procedural complexity. Thus, with a view to balance ischemic versus bleeding risks, high complexity of PCI intuitively represents an advocate of prolonged DAPT duration. However, the optimal DAPT strategy in this high ischemic risk subset of patients remains unclear, a fact that is exacerbated by the absence of a universal definition of C-PCI, resulting in a significant between-study heterogeneity. The aim of this review is to highlight the increased risks associated with C-PCI, compare long- versus short-term DAPT regimens regarding safety and efficacy endpoints as well as investigate outcomes in special C-PCI cohorts, such as patients with bifurcation, left main or chronic total occlusion lesions. Furthermore, controversial issues, such as antithrombotic regimens in C-PCI patients with atrial fibrillation, and future perspectives are addressed.
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)患者的双联抗血小板治疗(DAPT)持续时间一直存在争议。复杂 PCI(C-PCI)被认为与缺血风险增加有关,而随着手术复杂性的逐渐增加,这种风险往往更大。因此,为了平衡缺血与出血风险,PCI 的高复杂性直观上代表了延长 DAPT 持续时间的理由。然而,在这种高缺血风险的患者亚组中,最佳的 DAPT 策略仍不明确,这一事实因缺乏对 C-PCI 的普遍定义而更加严重,导致研究之间存在显著的异质性。本综述的目的是强调 C-PCI 相关的风险增加,比较长期与短期 DAPT 方案在安全性和疗效终点方面的差异,并研究特殊 C-PCI 患者亚组的结果,如分叉病变、左主干病变或慢性完全闭塞病变患者。此外,还探讨了 C-PCI 合并房颤患者的抗栓治疗方案等争议问题和未来展望。