De-escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Updated Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of 21 Studies and 38,741 Patients

Abstract

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended among patients with established acute coronary syndrome. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the clinical outcomes between de-escalation versus unchanged DAPT based on both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events for observational studies and net clinical events for RCTs. Four RCTs and 17 observational studies with a total of 38,741 patients were included. Net clinical events were more common with unchanged DAPT than with de-escalation in RCTs [odd ratio (OR): 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21-2.43; I2 = 69.4%], which was mainly due to higher risks of any bleeding (OR: 1.81; 95% CI, 1.14-2.88; I2 = 75.5%) and major bleeding (OR: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.02-2.46; I2 = 0), without significant differences in ischaemic events. However, trial sequential analysis revealed that sufficient information was obtained just for net clinical events, not for respective ischaemic or bleeding events in RCTs. In the analysis based on real-world observational studies, the risks of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.98; I2 = 0) and stroke (OR: 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81; I2 = 0) were lower with the unchanged DAPT group. Therefore, de-escalation of DAPT led to a marked reduction in net clinical events compared with unchanged DAPT in RCTs, which was mainly due to reduced bleeding events. However, sufficient information for ischaemic events was not obtained. In the analysis based on real-world observational studies, myocardial infarction and stroke were more common with de-escalation, which should arise our attention.