Towashiraporn Korakoth, Krittayaphong Rungroj
Her Majesty Cardiac Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Int J Gen Med. 2022 Mar 3;15:2397-2414. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S289295. eCollection 2022.
Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for ACS as this procedure reduces the morbidity and mortality rates of patients in clinical trials and daily practice. However, patients with a history of prior ACS who undergo PCI are still at high risk for recurrent major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Because the antithrombotic drugs reduce the rate of MACE and minimize stent-related complications such as target vessel failure or stent thrombosis, the utilization of these agents is the cornerstone treatment for secondary prevention of ACS patients after PCI. Unfortunately, using the antithrombotic agents may be associated with bleeding complications, including major or fatal bleeding. Therefore, premature discontinuation of antithrombotic regimens regarding the hemorrhagic events is sometimes inevitable and possibly leads to fatal complications such as stent thrombosis. To minimize the bleeding issues, shorten antithrombotic regimens have been proposed, which theoretically offers improved safety. Nevertheless, inappropriate withdrawal of antithrombotic drugs may increase the rate of ischemic events. On the other hand, an unnecessary prolonged antithrombotic regimen may cause avoidable bleeding. Balancing the risk of bleeding against the benefits of using antithrombotic drugs is therefore challenging especially for the patients who contain both bleeding and ischemic risks such as ACS patients who are concomitant using the anticoagulants. Currently, the treatment paradigms are shifting from the "one size fits all approach" toward the "tailored approach". This means that the antithrombotic regimens can be adjustable individually. As a result, various clinical risk scoring systems have been established to help physicians with their decision-making. However, besides the development of these dedicated scoring tools, clinical judgment for balancing the safety versus the efficacy before deciding on the antithrombotic plan is still imperative.
急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)是全球主要的死亡原因之一。经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是ACS的首选治疗方法,因为在临床试验和日常实践中,该手术可降低患者的发病率和死亡率。然而,接受PCI的既往有ACS病史的患者仍有较高的复发性主要不良心脏事件(MACE)风险。由于抗血栓药物可降低MACE发生率,并将支架相关并发症(如靶血管失败或支架血栓形成)降至最低,因此这些药物的使用是PCI术后ACS患者二级预防的基石治疗方法。不幸的是,使用抗血栓药物可能会伴有出血并发症,包括大出血或致命性出血。因此,有时不可避免地要因出血事件而提前停用抗血栓治疗方案,这可能会导致致命并发症,如支架血栓形成。为了将出血问题降至最低,有人提出了缩短抗血栓治疗方案,理论上可提高安全性。然而,不适当停用抗血栓药物可能会增加缺血事件的发生率。另一方面,不必要地延长抗血栓治疗方案可能会导致可避免的出血。因此,尤其是对于同时存在出血和缺血风险的患者(如正在使用抗凝剂的ACS患者),平衡出血风险与使用抗血栓药物的益处具有挑战性。目前,治疗模式正从“一刀切方法”转向“个体化方法”。这意味着抗血栓治疗方案可以进行个体化调整。因此,已经建立了各种临床风险评分系统来帮助医生进行决策。然而,除了开发这些专门的评分工具外,在决定抗血栓治疗方案之前,平衡安全性与有效性的临床判断仍然至关重要。