Abstract:The observation by Colombo and colleagues 1 that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), comprising aspirin and a P2Y12 antagonist, offers optimal antithrombotic protection following intracoronary stent implantation catalyzed the widespread adoption of intracoronary stents. Historically, stent thrombosis, a catastrophic event, was a concern primarily in the immediate aftermath of stent placement. However, the observation of stent thromboses occurring beyond 30 days in patients receiving first-generation, drug-eluting stents underscored the persistent nature of this risk. Consequently, the ideal DAPT duration has become the focal point of innumerable clinical trials and meta-analyses, even as stent thrombosis has substantially declined with modern stent platforms and intravascular imaging techniques. The challenge lies in balancing the ischemic risk associated with shorter DAPT duration against the bleeding risk entailed by extended therapy. While intuitively one might expect a bleeding event to be less catastrophic than stent thrombosis or myocardial infarction, studies 2 have shown otherwise. This dilemma is particularly accentuated in older adults, whose complex health profiles amplify their susceptibility to both bleeding and ischemic complications. Park and colleagues 3 present a network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluating various DAPT durations following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in older adults. Among 14 trials, including 19 102 participants aged 65 years or older, they found no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or net adverse clinical events (NACE), as defined variably in each trial, across 1-, 3-, 6-, or 12-month DAPT. 3 The study showed that short-term DAPT strategies (ie, 3- vs 6-month DAPT, 3- vs 12-month DAPT, and 1- vs 6-month DAPT) were associated with a significant reduction in bleeding risk, suggesting that short-term DAPT may offer a safer option for older adults without compromising efficacy against MACE or NACE. 3 While evaluating the ischemic and bleeding risk is fundamentally a bivariate process, NACE, which includes bleeding and ischemic events, was introduced as a unidimensional metric to quantify the overall risk-benefit profile of antithrombotic therapies. In this NMA, 3 given that 1- to 3-month DAPT compared with 6- to 12-month DAPT was associated with reduced bleeding risk without increasing ischemic risk, one would anticipate a corresponding reduction in NACE rather than a null effect. Additionally, the observation that 1-month compared with 6-month DAPT, but not 12-month DAPT, reduced bleeding prompts scrutiny of study design and evidence before clinical application. Using indirect evidence in an NMA requires the assumption that compared trials share similarities in patient characteristics, treatment protocol, and outcome measures. However, verifying this assumption is complicated by trial-level heterogeneity, including differences in antiplatelet therapies after DAPT deescalation, baseline risks for bleeding and ischemic events, and outcome definitions. For instance, the SMART-CHOICE trial 4 indicated that clopidogrel after 3-month DAPT in a broad patient population was effective in reducing bleeding without compromising MACE. Conversely, the TWILIGHT trial 5 found that ticagrelor monotherapy following 3-month DAPT vs 12-month DAPT decreased bleeding without elevating ischemic risk in high-risk patients. The diversity in antiplatelet therapy among trials, involving 3 different P2Y12 antagonists and different doses of aspirin, further complicates the analysis. 3 Moreover, several additional issues pose challenges when translating these findings into clinical practice. For instance, aligning events of comparable clinical significance on both sides of the calculus is imperative for a precise assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. The definitions of NACE and MACE in each trial incorporated events of varying clinical significance, ranging from all-cause mortality to less critical events like target vessel revascularization. 3 Additionally, only 5 trials included stent thrombosis in composite outcomes, and inconsistencies exist in classifying bleeding risk across trials. The distinct relative risk reductions offered by different DAPT regimens for various end points further emphasize the necessity of analyzing treatment effects on individual end points. Nonetheless, acknowledging these limitations, what does this study 3 add to the evidence? Consistent with recent evidence in other populations, this NMA 3 supports the notion that short-term DAPT is likely the ideal strategy to minimize the bleeding risk without compromising the protection against ischemic events in older adults. However, a universal DAPT duration and selection approach may not apply to all patient scenarios. Lim -Abstract Truncated-

Aspirin-free antiplatelet strategies after percutaneous coronary interventions

Aspirin-free P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review

P2Y12 Inhibitor vs Aspirin Monotherapy Following Dual Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Monotherapy with P2Y 12 -inhibitors after dual antiplatelet therapy: Filling gaps in evidence

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy or Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Short DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Short dual antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation after primary percutaneous intervention: For whom and how

P2Y<sub>12</sub> inhibitor monotherapy and dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

Balancing benefits and risks of oral antiplatelet strategies in patients with coronary artery diseases: an evolving issue.

Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stenting in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Events

Optimizing Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

SHORT-TERM DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY AFTER DRUG-ELUTING STENTING IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES: A BAYESIAN NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

Antithrombotic Treatment Regimens in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Requiring Oral Anticoagulation: What Real-World Evidence Shows Us

The Association of CHADS-P2A2RC Risk Score With Clinical Outcomes in Patients Taking P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After 3 Months of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin as Monotherapy Following Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Receiving a Drug‐Eluting Stent: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta‐Analysis

P2y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1–3 months dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease and chronic kidney disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Should We Use Aspirin or P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease?

An Aspirin-Free Strategy for Immediate Treatment Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract 119: P2Y12 Inhibitor With Or Without Aspirin In Patients With Hypertension Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention