Development and validation of a prediction rule for benefit and harm of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention.

IMPORTANCE: Dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces ischemia but increases bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical decision tool to identify patients expected to derive benefit vs harm from continuing thienopyridine beyond 1 year after PCI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Among 11,648 randomized DAPT Study patients from 11 countries (August 2009-May 2014), a prediction rule was derived stratifying patients into groups to distinguish ischemic and bleeding risk 12 to 30 months after PCI. Validation was internal via bootstrap resampling and external among 8136 patients from 36 countries randomized in the PROTECT trial (June 2007-July 2014). EXPOSURES: Twelve months of open-label thienopyridine plus aspirin, then randomized to 18 months of continued thienopyridine plus aspirin vs placebo plus aspirin. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ischemia (myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis) and bleeding (moderate or severe) 12 to 30 months after PCI. RESULTS: Among DAPT Study patients (derivation cohort; mean age, 61.3 years; women, 25.1%), ischemia occurred in 348 patients (3.0%) and bleeding in 215 (1.8%). Derivation cohort models predicting ischemia and bleeding had c statistics of 0.70 and 0.68, respectively. The prediction rule assigned 1 point each for myocardial infarction at presentation, prior myocardial infarction or PCI, diabetes, stent diameter less than 3 mm, smoking, and paclitaxel-eluting stent; 2 points each for history of congestive heart failure/low ejection fraction and vein graft intervention; -1 point for age 65 to younger than 75 years; and -2 points for age 75 years or older. Among the high score group (score ≥2, n = 5917), continued thienopyridine vs placebo was associated with reduced ischemic events (2.7% vs 5.7%; risk difference [RD], -3.0% [95% CI, -4.1% to -2.0%], P < .001) compared with the low score group (score <2, n = 5731; 1.7% vs 2.3%; RD, -0.7% [95% CI, -1.4% to 0.09%], P = .07; interaction P < .001). Conversely, continued thienopyridine was associated with smaller increases in bleeding among the high score group (1.8% vs 1.4%; RD, 0.4% [95% CI, -0.3% to 1.0%], P = .26) compared with the low score group (3.0% vs 1.4%; RD, 1.5% [95% CI, 0.8% to 2.3%], P < .001; interaction P = .02). Among PROTECT patients (validation cohort; mean age, 62 years; women, 23.7%), ischemia occurred in 79 patients (1.0%) and bleeding in 37 (0.5%), with a c statistic of 0.64 for ischemia and 0.64 for bleeding. In this cohort, the high-score patients (n = 2848) had increased ischemic events compared with the low-score patients and no significant difference in bleeding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients not sustaining major bleeding or ischemic events 1 year after PCI, a prediction rule assessing late ischemic and bleeding risks to inform dual antiplatelet therapy duration showed modest accuracy in derivation and validation cohorts. This rule requires further prospective evaluation to assess potential effects on patient care, as well as validation in other cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938

Recent advances and controversial issues in the optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis

Objective: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: “asymptomatic carotid stenosis,” “carotid endarterectomy” (CEA), “carotid artery stenting” (CAS), and “transcarotid artery revascularization” (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS. Results: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking. Conclusions: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction