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-

Impact Of 6-Versus 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy On Clinical Prognosis In Patients With High Bleeding Risk: Insights From The 4-Year Results Of The I Love It 2 Study

Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Without Revascularization: China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry Study.

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI.

6 versus 12 Months

Impact Of Six Versus 12 Months Of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy In Patients With Drug- Eluting Stent Implantation After Risk Stratification With The Residual Syntax Score: Results From A Secondary Analysis Of The I-Love- It 2 Trial

Safety and efficacy of 6‐month versus 12‐month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients after implantation of multiple biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting coronary stents: Insight from the I‐LOVE‐IT 2 trial

New Insights Into Long- Versus Short-Term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Patients After Stenting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Findings From a Prospective Observational Study

Impact of extended dual antiplatelet therapy on clinical prognosis in acute coronary syndrome patients with intermediate or high ischemic risk defined by the GRACE score

Short dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical observation of 6-month versus 12-month oral dual-antiplatelet therapy on patients after implantation of biodegradable polymer-coated and drug-eluted long coronary stents——insight from the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial

Effect of dual antiplatelet therapy prolongation in acute coronary syndrome patients with both high ischemic and bleeding risk: insight from the OPT-CAD study

Dual antiplatelet therapy over 6 months increases the risk of bleeding after biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus eluting stents implantation: insights from the CREATE study.

1- or 3-Month DAPT in Patients with HBR with or Without Oral Anticoagulant Therapy after PCI.

One- Versus Three-Month DAPT in Older Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: Insights From the XIENCE Short DAPT Global Program

Risk/Benefit Tradeoff of Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Therapy More Than 12 Months in TWILIGHT-Like High-Risk Patients After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Impact of dual antiplatelet therapy duration on 1-year clinical outcomes in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the real-world OPT-CAD study

Optimizing Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract 15084: One- Versus Three-Month DAPT in Diabetic Patients with High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: Results from the Xience Short DAPT Global Program

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration and stent type in patients with high bleeding risk: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

3- or 1-Month DAPT in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation

Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With New Generation Stents: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials