Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Stent thrombosis and re-infarction are disastrous complications after acute myocardial infarction. During the last decade, potent P2Y12 inhibitors like prasugrel/ticagrelor and extended duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) substantially reduced recurrent ischemic events. However, the novel European NSTEMI guidelines emphasize rigorous de-escalation of DAPT in patients with NSTEMI at “high bleeding risk” [1]. Definition of “high bleeding risk” is extremely challenging. In this study, we investigated how many patients would be de-escalated to 3 months of aspirin and clopidogrel according to the emphasized “high bleeding risk” algorithm in the ESC NSTEMI guidelines in a real-life cohort (Table 1).
We conducted a retrospective all-comers analysis of 973 NSTEMI patients that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2015 to May 2016. The current DAPT regime was based on clopidogrel for chronic coronary syndrome patients and in combination with oral anticoagulation. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were used in acute coronary syndrome. 22.6% of patients were on triple therapy, 48.2% had 12 months DAPT, 24.1% 6 months DAPT, and 5.1% one to 3 months DAPT. In this cohort, 492 patients (51%) of patients had “high bleeding risk” according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) algorithm and 470 (47.3%) according to the PRECISE-DAPT (PD-Score) definition.
The major finding of this study is that, according to the recommendation of the novel European guidelines, more than 50% of NSTEMI patients would be de-escalated to aspirin and clopidogrel for 3 months. This was surprising as limitations of clopidogrel are well known. Hence, more potent P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel/ticagrelor) were able to substantially reduce stent thrombosis and re-infarction. In contrast, bleeding was increased. Nevertheless, net clinical benefit was superior for both ticagrelor and prasugrel in comparison to clopidogrel [2, 3].
As mentioned above, detection of “high bleeding risk” is complex. The novel European NSTEMI guidelines emphasized the ARC score. This score includes age, kidney function, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and history of stroke among others. Moreover, PD Score is used, depending on hemoglobin and leukocyte levels, age, kidney function, and prior bleeding [4]. However, most parameters predict ischemic events as well. This is in line with a recent evaluation of the ARC “high bleeding risk” definition in post-PCI patients [5]. Moreover, practical usefulness in clinical routine is questionable as not every parameter might be available for every patient. In comparison, the American DAPT guidelines recommend decision for de-escalation and shortening of DAPT down to 6 months on an individual basis integrating clinical judgment, balancing benefit/risk ratio, and patient’s preference without any specific scoring system [6].
In the current analysis, 205 out of the 492 patients with HBR according to ARC definition have an anticipated use of long-term oral anticoagulation as prediction criteria. According to the guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation, triple therapy is just terminated after one week followed by single antiplatelet treatment combined with oral anticoagulation. Hence, the patients are not considered to receive DAPT for a longer period at all. With the view to DAPT cessation, it might be reasonable to exclude anticoagulation as parameter for HBR determination.
In summary, according to the novel ESC guidelines, more than 50% of NSTEMI patients would receive 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. However, it is important to note that this holds potential for an increased ischemic risk, particularly if performed early (< 30 days) after the index event. Large-scale trials are needed to assess the implementation of the novel guidelines to clinical practice and outcome of patients.
Abbreviations
- ACS:
-
Acute coronary syndrome
- ARC:
-
Academic Research Consortium
- CKD:
-
Chronic kidney disease
- DAPT:
-
Dual antiplatelet medication
- HBR:
-
High bleeding risk
- PCI:
-
Percutaneous coronary intervention
- PD:
-
PRECISE-DAPT
References
Collet JP et al (2020) ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J, 2020
Wallentin L et al (2009) Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 361(11):1045–1057
Wiviott SD et al (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357(20):2001–2015
Costa F et al (2017) Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet 389(10073):1025–1034
Cao D et al (2020) Validation of the Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk Definition in Contemporary PCI Patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 75(21):2711–2722
Levine GN et al (2016) 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 152(5):1243–1275
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Forschungskommission of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University (No 29–2019, to L.D., No. 18–2019 to A.P.) and by the German Research Foundation (PO 2247/2–1 to A.P. and SFB1116 to A.P.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.D., D.M., and M.P. designed the study, collected data, analyzed and interpreted data, and wrote the manuscript. T.P., T.Z., M.K., and A.P. supervised the study and revised the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics vote
The study goes in line with the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of Heinrich-Heine university of Düsseldorf.
Ethics committee approval
The study conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the University of Düsseldorf Ethics Committee (vote no. 2018–2022).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dannenberg, L., M’Pembele, R., Metzen, D. et al. European NSTEMI guidelines—return of clopidogrel?. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 78, 151–153 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-021-03200-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-021-03200-2