Author
Listed:
- Toshiaki Toyota
- Hiroki Shiomi
- Takeshi Morimoto
- Masahiro Natsuaki
- Takeshi Kimura
Abstract
Aims: The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) study demonstrated that DAPT beyond 1-year after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, which was mainly driven by the large risk reduction for myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to compare the largest DAPT study with other trials evaluating DAPT durations after DES implantation. Methods and results: By a systematic literature search, we identified 9 trials comparing prolonged- versus short-DAPT in addition to the DAPT study. The result from the DAPT study (N = 9961) with public–private collaboration was different from the pooled result of the 9 other investigator-driven trials (N = 22174) in terms of the effect of prolonged-DAPT on MI (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 [95%CI 0.38–0.62] versus pooled OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.67–1.15]: P = 0.001 for difference), while the trends for excess risk of prolonged-DAPT relative to short-DAPT for all-cause death (OR 1.31 [95%CI 0.97–1.78] versus pooled OR 1.16 [95%CI 0.92–1.45]: P = 0.53 for difference), and bleeding (OR 1.62 [95%CI 1.21–2.17] versus pooled OR 2.08 [95%CI 1.51–2.84]: P = 0.25 for difference) were consistently seen in both the DAPT and other trials. The annual rate of MI during aspirin mono-therapy in the DAPT study was much higher than that those in the other trials (2.7% versus 0.6–1.6%). Conclusions: Given the difference between the DAPT study and other trials, future studies should focus on certain subgroups of patients that are more or less likely to benefit from longer duration DAPT.
Suggested Citation
Toshiaki Toyota & Hiroki Shiomi & Takeshi Morimoto & Masahiro Natsuaki & Takeshi Kimura, 2017.
"Short versus prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after coronary stent implantation: A comparison between the DAPT study and 9 other trials evaluating DAPT duration,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0174502
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174502
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.