Meta-Analysis of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Monotherapy With P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents is a matter of considerable debate with more data suggesting a shorter period of DAPT is feasible. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate DAPT compared with monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to October 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of patients treated with either DAPT or monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor following PCI. Primary outcomes of interest included major bleeding, ischemic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events), and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Event rates were extracted, and the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model was used to perform a meta-analysis. Summary statistics are reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analyses were performed using the generic inverse method. We identified four trials with 29,089 randomized patients. Use of P2Y12 monotherapy was associated with 30% lower odds of major bleeding 0.70 (0.60-0.81; p <0.01). Ischemic and mortality outcomes were similar in the two groups. For the outcome of major bleeding the results favor the use of P2Y12 monotherapy in the subgroups of age, sex, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, acute coronary syndrome, and multivessel disease. The present meta-analysis provides the most updated data on the use of DAPT duration. Following an initial period of short-term DAPT, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor appears to be the superior strategy for optimization of bleeding and thrombotic risk after PCI.
Malik, A. H., Yandrapalli, S., Shetty, S. S., Aronow, W. S., Cooper, H. A., & Panza, J. A. (2020). Meta-Analysis of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Monotherapy With P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The American Journal of Cardiology, 127, 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.04.027