Are Shorter Durations of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Acceptable Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Abstract

Much debate has centered on whether or not the standard 12-month duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is still necessary postpercutaneous coronary intervention, given recent improvements in stent technology. The benefits of shorter (3-6 months) durations of DAPT include a potential lower risk for bleeding and less patient drug cost and pill burden. Although randomized clinical trials have shown noninferiority for shorter versus longer DAPT regimens in many regards, some endpoints (e.g., myocardial infarction) may still occur less frequently with longer DAPT regimens, particularly in higher risk populations (e.g., acute coronary syndromes). Bleeding risk is either comparable or less with shorter versus longer DAPT regimens. Given the lack of unequivocal data regarding the equality of shorter versus longer DAPT regimens in all patients, there is a growing consensus that an individualized approach is advisable for determining DAPT duration postpercutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical decision aids and updated clinical practice guidelines are available that consider risk:benefit ratios and clinical trial data to assist the clinician in developing a personalized DAPT regimen.