Review

Precision medicine in interventional cardiology: implications for antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3909-182X

Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy

Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola, Italy

Search for more papers by this author

Luis Ortega-Paz

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Francesco Franchi

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Fabiana Rollini

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Dominick J Angiolillo

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 904 244 3933;

E-mail Address: dominick.angiolillo@jax.ufl.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8451-2131

Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:8 Aug 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2022-0057

View article

Abstract

Precision medicine is a medical model that proposes the customization of medical treatments to the individual patient, as opposed to a one-drug-fits-all model. Such a “personalized medicine” approach has been widely adopted in several medical fields, such as cancer medicine, but the implementation of precision medicine in cardiovascular medicine has not been similarly straightforward. Because pharmacogenomics plays an important role in the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular drug therapy, there has been a great interest in the use of tools aiming at personalizing antiplatelet therapy. Moreover, antiplatelet therapy is essential for the treatment of cardiovascular patients to reduce the risk of thrombotic complications, particularly those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but it is inevitably associated with increased bleeding risk. In this review, the authors discuss the rationale, summarize the evidence and discuss the current and future directions for the personalization of antiplatelet treatment regimens in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Keywords:

References

1. Council NR. Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. The National Academies Press, DC, USA,142 (2011).
Google Scholar
2. Incorvati JA, Shah S, Mu Y, Lu J. Targeted therapy for HER2 positive breast cancer. J. Hematol. Onco 6, 38 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Duarte JD, Cavallari LH. Pharmacogenetics to guide cardiovascular drug therapy. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 18(9), 649–665 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Galli M, Franchi F, Rollini F, Angiolillo DJ. Role of platelet function and genetic testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. S1050-1738(21) 00157-2 (2021).
Google Scholar
5. Capodanno D, Alfonso F, Levine GN, Valgimigli M, Angiolillo DJ. ACC/AHA versus ESC guidelines on dual antiplatelet therapy: JACC guideline comparison. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72(23 Pt A), 2915–2931 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 42(14), 1289–1367 (2020).
Google Scholar
7. Angiolillo DJ, Galli M, Collet JP, Kastrati A, O'Donghue M. Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eurointervention. 17(17), e1371–e1396 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
8. Valgimigli M, Costa F, Lokhnygina Y et al. Trade-off of myocardial infarction vs. bleeding types on mortality after acute coronary syndrome: lessons from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) randomized trial. Eur. Heart J. 38(11), 804–810 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Galli M, Andreotti F, D'Amario D et al. Antithrombotic therapy in the early phase of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacother. 6(1), 43–56 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Aradi D, Kirtane A, Bonello L et al. Bleeding and stent thrombosis on P2Y₁₂-inhibitors: collaborative analysis on the role of platelet reactivity for risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur. Heart J. 36(27), 1762–1771 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Alexopoulos D et al. Updated expert consensus statement on platelet function and genetic testing for guiding P2Y(12) receptor inhibitor treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 12(16), 1521–1537 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Galli M, Franchi F, Rollini F et al. Genetic testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: rationale, evidence and practical recommendations. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 14(8), 963–978 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Galli M, Benenati S, Franchi F et al. Comparative effects of guided vs. potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 43(10), 959–967 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Galli M, Capodanno D, Andreotti F, Crea F, Angiolillo DJ. Safety and efficacy of P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 20(1), 9–21 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur. Heart J. 39(2), 119–177 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 40(2), 87–165 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Scott SA, Sangkuhl K, Stein CM et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy: 2013 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 94(3), 317–323 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Lee CR, Luzum JA, Sangkuhl K et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel therapy: 2022 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. doi:10.1002/cpt.2526 (2022) (Epub ahead of print).
Google Scholar
19. Galli M, Gargiulo G. Towards a personalized selection of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing PCI: the role of clinical presentation in tools for risk assessment. J. Thromb. Thrombolysis 53(2), 495–498 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Giustino G, Chieffo A, Palmerini T et al. Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy after complex PCI. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 68(17), 1851–1864 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Capodanno D, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM et al. Bleeding avoidance strategies in percutaneous coronary intervention. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 19(2), 117–132 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Capodanno D, Morice MC, Angiolillo DJ et al. Trial design principles for patients at high bleeding risk undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76(12), 1468–1483 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
23. Bhatt DL, Kaski JC, Delaney S et al. Results of an international crowdsourcing survey on the treatment of non-ST segment elevation ACS patients at high-bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous intervention. Int. J. Cardiol. 337, 1–8 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Li-Wan-Po A, Girard T, Farndon P, Cooley C, Lithgow J. Pharmacogenetics of CYP2C19: functional and clinical implications of a new variant CYP2C19*17. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 69(3), 222–230 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Pereira NL, Rihal CS, So DYF et al. Clopidogrel pharmacogenetics. Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions 12(4), e007811 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Moon JY, Franchi F, Rollini F et al. Role of genetic testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 11(2), 151–164 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD et al. Cytochrome P-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(4), 354–362 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP et al. Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 304(16), 1821–1830 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Shuldiner AR, O'Connell JR, Bliden KP et al. Association of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype with the antiplatelet effect and clinical efficacy of clopidogrel therapy. JAMA. 302(8), 849–857 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Simon T, Verstuyft C, Mary-Krause M et al. Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events. N. Engl. J. Med. 360(4), 363–375 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Hochholzer W, Trenk D, Fromm MF et al. Impact of cytochrome P450 2C19 loss-of-function polymorphism and of major demographic characteristics on residual platelet function after loading and maintenance treatment with clopidogrel in patients undergoing elective coronary stent placement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55(22), 2427–2434 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Lewis JP, Stephens SH, Horenstein RB et al. The CYP2C19*17 variant is not independently associated with clopidogrel response. J. Thromb. Haemost. 11(9), 1640–1646 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Lee CR, Thomas CD, Beitelshees AL et al. Impact of the CYP2C19*17 allele on outcomes in patients receiving genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 109(3), 705–715 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Wallentin L, James S, Storey RF et al. Effect of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on outcomes of treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes: a genetic substudy of the PLATO trial. Lancet. 376(9749), 1320–1328 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD et al. Cytochrome P450 genetic polymorphisms and the response to prasugrel: relationship to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical outcomes. Circulation. 119(19), 2553–2560 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
36. Sugidachi A, Ogawa T, Kurihara A et al. The greater in vivo antiplatelet effects of prasugrel as compared to clopidogrel reflect more efficient generation of its active metabolite with similar antiplatelet activity to that of clopidogrel's active metabolite. J. Thromb. Haemost. 5(7), 1545–1551 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Trenk D, Hochholzer W. Genetics of platelet inhibitor treatment. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 77(4), 642–653 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
38. Capodanno D, Dharmashankar K, Angiolillo DJ. Mechanism of action and clinical development of ticagrelor, a novel platelet ADP P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist. Expert Rev. Cardiovasc. Ther. 8(2), 151–158 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Angiolillo DJ, Ueno M, Goto S. Basic principles of platelet biology and clinical implications. Circulation J. 74(4), 597–607 (2010).
CASGoogle Scholar
40. Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ. Antithrombotic therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk mitigation in patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus. Circulation 142(22), 2172–2188 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Patti G, Cavallari I, Andreotti F et al. Prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with diabetes mellitus: from antithrombotic therapies to new-generation glucose-lowering drugs. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 16(2), 113–130 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
42. Rollini F, Franchi F, Muñiz-Lozano A, Angiolillo DJ. Platelet function profiles in patients with diabetes mellitus. J. Cardiovasc. Transl. Res. 6(3), 329–345 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Franchi F, Rollini F, Aggarwal N et al. Pharmacodynamic comparison of prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the OPTIMUS (Optimizing Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus)-4 study. Circulation. 134(11), 780–792 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Angiolillo DJ, Jakubowski JA, Ferreiro JL et al. Impaired responsiveness to the platelet P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist clopidogrel in patients with Type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64(10), 1005–1014 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Zhu HJ, Wang X, Gawronski BE, Brinda BJ, Angiolillo DJ, Markowitz JS. Carboxylesterase 1 as a determinant of clopidogrel metabolism and activation. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 344(3), 665–672 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Yao H, Gu J, Shan Y et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus decreases systemic exposure of clopidogrel active metabolite through upregulation of P-glycoprotein in rats. Biochem. Pharmacol. 180, 114142 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Gravel S, Chiasson JL, Turgeon J, Grangeon A, Michaud V. Modulation of CYP450 activities in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 106(6), 1280–1289 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Erlinge D, Varenhorst C, Braun OO et al. Patients with poor responsiveness to thienopyridine treatment or with diabetes have lower levels of circulating active metabolite, but their platelets respond normally to active metabolite added ex vivo. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 52(24), 1968–1977 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Ferreiro JL, Angiolillo DJ. Diabetes and antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 123(7), 798–813 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
50. Zhang R, Mamza JB, Morris T et al. Lifetime risk of cardiovascular-renal disease in Type 2 diabetes: a population-based study in 473,399 individuals. BMC Medicine. 20(1), 63 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E et al. Clopidogrel withdrawal is associated with proinflammatory and prothrombotic effects in patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease. Diabetes. 55(3), 780–784 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
52. Angiolillo DJ, Bernardo E, Sabaté M et al. Impact of platelet reactivity on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50(16), 1541–1547 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
53. Franchi F, James SK, Lakic TG et al. Impact of diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease on cardiovascular outcomes and platelet P2Y(12) receptor antagonist effects in patients with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the PLATO trial. J. Am. Heart Association 8(6), e011139 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, Angiolillo DJ et al. Greater clinical benefit of more intensive oral antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus in the trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38. Circulation. 118(16), 1626–1636 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
55. Steg PG, Bhatt DL, Simon T et al. Ticagrelor in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(14), 1309–1320 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
56. Bhatt DL, Bonaca MP, Bansilal S et al. Reduction in ischemic events with ticagrelor in diabetic patients with prior myocardial infarction in PEGASUS-TIMI 54. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67(23), 2732–2740 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Nardin M, Verdoia M, Sartori C et al. Body mass index and platelet reactivity during dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or ticagrelor. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 66(4), 364–370 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
58. Baber U, Mehran R, Kirtane AJ et al. Prevalence and impact of high platelet reactivity in chronic kidney disease: results from the Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 8(6), e001683 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
59. Park DW, Ahn JM, Song HG et al. Differential prognostic impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity among patients with acute coronary syndromes versus stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am. Heart J. 165(1), 34–42.e1 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
60. Angiolillo DJ, Capodanno D, Danchin N et al. Derivation, validation, and prognostic utility of a prediction rule for nonresponse to clopidogrel: the ABCD-GENE score. JACC Cardiovas. Interv. 13(5), 606–617 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
61. Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ, Lennon RJ et al. ABCD-GENE score and clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the TAILOR-PCI trial. J. Am. Heart Association 11(4), e024156 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
62. Dai L, Xu J, Yan H et al. Application of age, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and genotyping score for efficacy of clopidogrel: secondary analysis of the CHANCE trial. Stroke. 53(2), 465–472 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
63. Man M, Farmen M, Dumaual C et al. Genetic variation in metabolizing enzyme and transporter genes: comprehensive assessment in 3 major East Asian subpopulations with comparison to Caucasians and Africans. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 50(8), 929–940 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Alrajeh KY, Roman YM. The frequency of major CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms in women of Asian, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander subgroups. Personalized Med. 19(4), 327–339 (2022).
Google Scholar
65. Kwon O, Park D-W. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary interventions in East Asian populations. JACC. 2(1), 1–18 (2022).
Google Scholar
66. Kim HK, Tantry US, Smith SC Jr et al. The East Asian paradox: an updated position statement on the challenges to the current antithrombotic strategy in patients with cardiovascular disease. Thromb. Haemost. 121(4), 422–432 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
67. Levine GN, Jeong YH, Goto S et al. Expert consensus document: World Heart Federation expert consensus statement on antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients with ACS or undergoing PCI. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 11(10), 597–606 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
68. Valgimigli M, Gragnano F, Branca M et al. P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary revascularisation: individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.) 373, n1332 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
69. Gustafson C, Gower MN, Williams AK et al. Effect of gender on clinical outcomes in patients receiving CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 13(5), 554–556 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
70. Franchi F, Rollini F, Cho JR, Ferrante E, Angiolillo DJ. Platelet function testing in contemporary clinical and interventional practice. Curr. Treat. Options Cardiovasc. Med. 16(5), 300 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
71. Angiolillo DJ. Dual antiplatelet therapy guided by platelet function testing. Lancet. 390(10104), 1718–1720 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
72. Galli M, Franchi F. Guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome: impact on outcomes and resources utilization. Int. J. Cardiol. 345, 36–38 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
73. Claassens DMF, Vos GJA, Bergmeijer TO et al. A genotype-guided strategy for oral P2Y(12) inhibitors in primary PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(17), 1621–1631 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
74. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Jacobshagen C et al. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS): a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet. 390(10104), 1747–1757 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
75. Galli M, Benenati S, Capodanno D et al. Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 397(10283), 1470–1483 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
76. Cadroy Y, Bossavy JP, Thalamas C, Sagnard L, Sakariassen K, Boneu B. Early potent antithrombotic effect with combined aspirin and a loading dose of clopidogrel on experimental arterial thrombogenesis in humans. Circulation. 101(24), 2823–2828 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
77. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. Heart J. 42(5), 373–498 (2020).
Google Scholar
78. Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C et al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(25), 2423–2434 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Cannon CP, Bhatt DL, Oldgren J et al. Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran after PCI in atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 377(16), 1513–1524 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
80. Lopes RD, Heizer G, Aronson R et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(16), 1509–1524 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
81. Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Eckardt L et al. Edoxaban-based versus vitamin K antagonist-based antithrombotic regimen after successful coronary stenting in patients with atrial fibrillation (ENTRUST-AF PCI): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet. 394(10206), 1335–1343 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
82. Galli M, Andreotti F, D'Amario D et al. Randomised trials and meta-analyses of double vs triple antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation-ACS/PCI: a critical appraisal. Int. J. Cardiol. Heart Vasculature 28, 100524 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
83. Capodanno D, Di Maio M, Greco A et al. Safety and efficacy of double antithrombotic therapy with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Heart Association 9(16), e017212 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
84. Gargiulo G, Goette A, Tijssen J et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials. Eur. Heart J. 40(46), 3757–3767 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
85. Galli M, Andreotti F, D'Amario D et al. Dual therapy with direct oral anticoagulants significantly increases the risk of stent thrombosis compared to triple therapy. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacother. 6(2), 128–129 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
86. Galli M, Andreotti F, Porto I, Crea F. Intracranial haemorrhages vs. stent thromboses with direct oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet agent or triple antithrombotic therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention/acute coronary syndrome patients. Europace. 22(4), 538–546 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
87. Galli M, Andreotti F, D'Amario D, Porto I, Crea F. Stent thrombosis with dual antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation-ACS/PCI trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 75(14), 1727–1728 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
88. Schömig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N. Engl. J. Med. 334(17), 1084–1089 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
89. Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ et al. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. Stent anticoagulation restenosis study investigators. N. Engl. J. Med. 339(23), 1665–1671 (1998).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
90. O'Donoghue ML, Murphy SA, Sabatine MS. The safety and efficacy of aspirin discontinuation on a background of a P2Y(12) inhibitor in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 142(6), 538–545 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
91. Benenati S, Galli M, De Marzo V et al. Very short vs. long dual antiplatelet therapy after second generation drug-eluting stents in 35 785 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacother. 7(2), 86–93 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
92. Watanabe H, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M et al. Comparison of clopidogrel monotherapy after 1 to 2months of dual antiplatelet therapy with 12months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: the STOPDAPT-2 ACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiology. 7(4), 407–417 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
93. De Luca L, D'Ascenzo F, Musumeci G et al. Incidence and outcome of switching of oral platelet P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SCOPE registry. Eurointervention. 13(4), 459–466 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
94. Franchi F, Rollini F, Rivas Rios J et al. Pharmacodynamic effects of switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients with coronary artery disease: results of the SWAP-4 study. Circulation. 137(23), 2450–2462 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
95. Cuisset T, Deharo P, Quilici J et al. Benefit of switching dual antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome: the TOPIC (Timing of Platelet Inhibition after acute coronary syndrome) randomized study. Eur. Heart J. 38(41), 3070–3078 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
96. Kim H-S, Kang J, Hwang D et al. Prasugrel-based de-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS): an open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial. Lancet. 396(10257), 1079–1089 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
97. Kim CJ, Park MW, Kim MC et al. Unguided de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in stabilised patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TALOS-AMI): an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet. 398(10308), 1305–1316 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 23, No. 13

Metrics

Downloaded 157 times

History

Received 5 May 2022

Accepted 28 July 2022

Published online 8 August 2022

Published in print August 2022

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

BioRender platform and templates were used for creating figures.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

M Galli declares that he has received payment as an individual for a consulting fee or an honorarium from Terumo. F Franchi declares that he has received payment as an individual for a consulting fee or an honorarium from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Sanofi, as well as institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. DJ Angiolillo declares that he has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer and Sanofi. DJ Angiolillo also declares that his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. L Ortega-Paz is supported by a grant from the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC/MHE-MOV-INT 20/001). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download