Dual antiplatelet therapy duration and stent type in patients with high bleeding risk: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

It is uncertain whether the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) vary according to DAPT duration and stent type (eg, durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DESs), biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs), or polymer-free drug-coated stents (PF-DCSs)). We aimed to study the stent type and DAPT duration appropriate for patients with HBR.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched until October 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with HBR that compared standard DAPT (6-12 months) with DP- or BP-DES versus short DAPT (≤3 months) with DP- or BP-DES or PF-DCS or bare-metal stent (BMS) were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included MI and stent thrombosis (ST). We performed a network meta-analysis using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs with a total of 19,418 patients with HBR were included. Compared to standard DAPT with DP-DES, short DAPT with BMS was associated with a higher risk of MACE and MI. For major bleeding, short DAPT strategies were associated with a lower risk than standard DAPT strategies (e.g. short DAPT with DP-DES vs standard DAPT with DP-DES; HR[95% CI]: 0.48[0.28-0.82]). Interestingly, the use of BP-DES was associated with a higher risk of ST than DP-DES (e.g. standard DAPT with BP-DES vs short DAPT with DP-DES; HR[95% CI]: 2.65[1.03-6.79]).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HBR who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, a short DAPT strategy with DP-DES should be used since it offers the best combination of efficacy and safety.