CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

双重抗血小板治疗持续时间

Abstract

Recommended Article

Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes Genotyping to Guide Clopidogrel Treatment: An In-Depth Analysis of the TAILOR-PCI Trial Updated Expert Consensus Statement on Platelet Function and Genetic Testing for Guiding P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitor Treatment in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Osteoarthritis risk is reduced after treatment with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel: a propensity score matching analysis Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Duration in Medically Managed Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: Sub-Analysis of the OPT-CAD Study Individualized antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent deployment: Implication of clinical trials of different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy Extended antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel alone versus clopidogrel plus aspirin after completion of 9- to 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome patients with both high bleeding and ischemic risk. Rationale and design of the OPT-BIRISK double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label Trial to Compare Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Stabilized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction after Percutan eous Coronary Intervention: rationale and design of the TALOS-AMI trial

Original Research2018 Jun 12;137(24):2551-2553.

JOURNAL: Article Link

Conceptual Framework for Addressing Residual Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in the Era of Precision Medicine

Patel KV, Pandey A, de Lemos JA et al. Keywords: atherosclerosis; biomarkers; precision medicine; residual risk; secondary prevention

ABSTRACT

Until recently, therapies to mitigate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk have been limited to lifestyle interventions, blood pressure-lowering medications, high-intensity statin therapy, antiplatelet agents, and, in select patients, coronary artery revascularization. Despite administration of these evidence-based therapies, substantial residual risk for cardiovascular events persists, particularly among individuals with known ASCVD. Moreover, the current guideline-based approach does not adequately account for patient-specific, causal pathways that lead to ASCVD progression and complications. In the past few years, multiple new pharmacological agents, targeting conceptually distinct pathophysiological targets, have been shown in large and well-conducted clinical trials to lower cardiovascular risk among patients with established ASCVD receiving guideline-directed medical care. These evidenced-based therapies reduce event rates and, in some cases, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; these benefits confirm important new disease targets and challenge the adequacy of the current standard of care for secondary prevention.

After years of treating our patients after an acute coronary syndrome event with the same core group of medications that have been proven to be safe, beneficial, and cost-effective, a diverse array of potentially beneficial options to address residual risk is now available. The near simultaneous development of these new approaches to secondary prevention disrupts existing paradigms regarding assessment and treatment of residual risk. For example, consider a hypothetical patient with obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia who had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and received an intracoronary drug-eluting stent. This patient would likely be …

Please click the "Article Link" to address the full text.