CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

DAPT Duration

Abstract

Recommended Article

A new strategy for discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy: the RESET Trial (REal Safety and Efficacy of 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation) Dual antiplatelet therapy: how, how long, and in which patients? Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel After Fibrinolytic Therapy in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Clinical Trial Study of Two Dose Regimens of Ticagrelor Compared with Clopidogrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Artery Disease (STEEL-PCI) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes Dual antiplatelet therapy (PEGASUS) vs. dual pathway (COMPASS): a head-to-head in vitro comparison Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Evolution of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a 40-year journey

Original Research2018 Jan;34(1):31-37.

JOURNAL:Can J Cardiol. Article Link

Cost-Effectiveness of Different Durations of Dual-Antiplatelet Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Arbel Y, Bennell MC, Wijeysundera HC et al. Keywords: Cost-Effectiveness; Dual-Antiplatelet; Different Durations

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - There is uncertainty regarding the optimal duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our goal was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different durations of DAPT.


METHODS - We created a probabilistic patient-level Markov microsimulation model to assess the discounted lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of short duration (3-6 months: short-duration group) vs standard therapy (12 months: standard-duration group) vs prolonged therapy (30-36 months: long-durationgroup) in patients undergoing PCI.


RESULTS - The majority of patients in the model underwent PCI for stable angina (47.1%) with second-generation drug-eluting stents (62%) and were receiving clopidogrel (83.6%). Short-duration DAPT was the most effective strategy (7.163 ± 1.098 QALYs) compared with standard-duration DAPT (7.161 ± 1.097 QALYs) and long-duration DAPT (7.156 ± 1.097 QALYs). However, the magnitude of these differences was very small. Similarly, the average discounted lifetime cost was CAN$24,859 ± $6533 for short duration, $25,045 ± $6533 for standard duration, and $25,046 ± $6548 for long duration. Thus, in the base-case analysis, short duration was dominant, being more effective and less expensive. However, there was a moderate degree of uncertainty, because short duration was the preferred option in only ∼ 55% of simulations at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000.


CONCLUSIONS - Based on a stable angina cohort receiving clopidogrel with second-generation stents, a short duration of DAPT was marginally better. However, the differences are minimal, and decisions about duration of therapy should be driven by clinical data, patient risk of adverse events, including bleeding, and cardiovascular events.

Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.