CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial Predicting lifetime risk for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Chinese population: the China-PAR project Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients Usefulness of longitudinal reconstructed optical coherence tomography images for predicting the need for the reverse wire technique during coronary bifurcation interventions Prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II trial Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Good response to tolvaptan shortens hospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical Trial2019 Jan 3.[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Clin Res Cardiol. Article Link

Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry

Moalem K, Baber U, Mehran R et al. Keywords: Bleeding; DAPT; Disruption; Ischemic; Non-compliance

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The disruption of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) due to non-compliance or bleeding is known to significantly increase the risk of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, it is currently unknown if there are differences in the predictors and clinical impact of disruption due to non-compliance compared with bleeding.

 

METHODS - The patterns of non-adherence to antiplatelet regimens in stented patients (PARIS) registry was an international, multicenter prospective study of PCI patients discharged on DAPT (aspirin + a P2Y12 receptor). We analyzed the incidence, patient characteristics, predictors, and outcomes in patients with DAPT disruption due to non-compliance as compared to DAPT disruption due to bleeding in the PARIS registry. Predictors of non-recommended disruption and bleeding disruption were assessed using logistic regression. Risks associated with disruption on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were analyzed using time-updated Cox regression over 2-year follow-up.

 

RESULTS - Out of 5018 patients, the rate of non-compliant DAPT disruption was 1.6% at 30 days (n = 79), 6.5% at 12 months (n = 328), and 9.1% at 2 years from PCI (n = 457). The rate of bleeding DAPT disruption was 0.6% at 30 days (n = 32), 3.1% at 12 months (n = 156), and 4.6% at 2 years (n = 229). Multivariate predictors of non-compliant disruption included female gender, history of smoking, acute coronary syndrome, and US patients which were associated with greater risk; and dyslipidemia and discharge PPI which were associated with lower risk. Multivariate predictors of bleeding disruption included older age, prior MI, and discharge warfarin which were associated with greater risk; and US region and intervention to the LAD which were associated with lower risk. Non-compliant disruption was associated with a significantly greater risk for MACE (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17-2.54, p = 0.006) and spontaneous myocardial infarction (HR 2.93, 95% CI 1.85-4.65, p < 0.001). Bleeding disruption was associated with a significantly greater risk for all-cause death (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.22-3.08, p = 0.005).

 

CONCLUSION - Approximately 1 in 10 patients disrupts DAPT due to non-compliance and 1 in 20 disrupts DAPT due to bleeding. Disruption due to non-compliance resulted in higher risk for ischemic events and disruption due to bleeding had higher subsequent mortality. These data warrant efforts to focus on patient education in those at high risk of non-compliance.