Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain.

Related collections

Most cited references 10

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Glenn N Levine, Eric R. Bates, James Blankenship … (2011)

0 comments Cited 352 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study.

Usman Baber, Ioannis P Iakovou, Philippe Gabriel Steg … (2013)

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether risk changes over time, depends on the underlying reason for DAPT cessation, or both is unknown. We assessed associations between different modes of DAPT cessation and cardiovascular risk after PCI. The PARIS (patterns of non-adherence to anti-platelet regimens in stented patients) registry is a prospective observational study of patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation in 15 clinical sites in the USA and Europe between July 1, 2009, and Dec 2, 2010. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) undergoing successful stent implantation in one or more native coronary artery and discharged on DAPT were eligible for enrolment. Patients were followed up at months 1, 6, 12, and 24 after implantation. Prespecified categories for DAPT cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation, brief interruption (for surgery), or disruption (non-compliance or because of bleeding). All adverse events and episodes of DAPT cessation were independently adjudicated. Using Cox models with time-varying covariates, we examined the effect of DAPT cessation on major adverse events (MACE [composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularisation]). Incidence rates for DAPT cessation and adverse events were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to the first event. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00998127. We enrolled 5031 patients undergoing PCI, including 5018 in the final study population. Over 2 years, the overall incidence of any DAPT cessation was 57·3%. Rate of any discontinuation was 40·8%, of interruption was 10·5%, and of disruption was 14·4%. The corresponding overall 2 year MACE rate was 11·5%, most of which (74%) occurred while patients were taking DAPT. Compared with those on DAPT, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE due to interruption was 1·41 (95% CI 0·94-2·12; p=0·10) and to disruption was 1·50 (1·14-1.97; p=0·004). Within 7 days, 8-30 days, and more than 30 days after disruption, adjusted HRs were 7·04 (3·31-14·95), 2·17 (0·97-4·88), and 1·3 (0·97-1·76), respectively. By contrast with patients who remained on DAPT, those who discontinued had lower MACE risk (0·63 [0·46-0·86]). Results were similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition that did not include target lesion revascularisation. In a real-world setting, for patients undergoing PCI and discharged on DAPT, cardiac events after DAPT cessation depend on the clinical circumstance and reason for cessation and attenuates over time. While most events after PCI occur in patients on DAPT, early risk for events due to disruption is substantial irrespective of stent type. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 134 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Test statistics and sample size formulae for comparative binomial trials with null hypothesis of non-zero risk difference or non-unity relative risk.

C. Farrington, G. Manning (1990)

When it is required to establish a materially significant difference between two treatments, or, alternatively, to show that two treatments are equivalent, standard test statistics and sample size formulae based on a null hypothesis of no difference no longer apply. This paper reviews some of the test statistics and sample size formulae proposed for comparative binomial trials when the null hypothesis is of a specified non-zero difference or non-unity relative risk. Methods based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation are recommended and applied to studies of pertussis vaccine.