Meta-analysis of 3-month vs 12-month dual anti-platelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

Abstract Background The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the era of second generation drug-eluting stents is a matter of debate as increasing evidence suggests that shorter periods of DAPT are feasible and reduce bleeding events. However, the non-inferiority design of the published trials regarding ischemic events still raises doubt on its effectiveness. Methods We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate short-term (≤ 3 months) vs long-term (≥ 12 months) DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of patients between these two regimens. Primary outcome of interest included a composite of ischemic events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, re-revascularization and stroke) and secondary outcome was major bleeding as assessed by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification ≥ 3 after 1 year of follow up. Event rates were extracted and Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis. Results We identified a total of 5 trials with 18.682 randomized patients. The use of short-term DAPT was not associated with increased risk of ischemic events (0.90 [0.75-1.08], p=0.250; Figure 1) and was associated with reduced risk of major bleeding (0.74 [0.65-0.84], p<0.001; Figure 2). Conclusion The present meta-analysis provides an updated data on the use of DAPT duration. Short-term DAPT appears to be equivalent to long-term DAPT regarding ischemic risk and a superior strategy in optimizing bleeding risk reduction.Forest plot of ischemic outcomesForest plot of bleeding outcomes