Comparative efficacy and safety of de-escalation, abbreviation, and standard potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies after acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis.
- 1Department of Pharmacy, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung Shan S. Rd., Taipei 100, Taiwan.
- 2Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung Shan S. Rd., Taipei 100, Taiwan.
- 3Telehealth Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung Shan S. Rd., Taipei 100, Taiwan.
Abstract
Aims
Potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the default antiplatelet strategy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), though de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT and abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy are increasingly adopted to mitigate bleeding risk. However, their relative efficacy and safety remain uncertain.Methods and results
Network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare three guideline-endorsed strategies: (i) short-term potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based DAPT de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT, (ii) abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy, and (iii) standard 12-month potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based DAPT. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. The key net clinical endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE). PROSPERO (CRD420251144892) Seven randomized controlled trials involving 20 673 patients were included. Both the de-escalation and abbreviation strategies significantly reduced major bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74, P = 0.002; and RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, P < 0.001, respectively) and NACE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, P < 0.001; and RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.84, P < 0.001, respectively) without increasing MACE or other ischaemic outcomes. Indirect comparison indicated that de-escalation vs. abbreviation strategies demonstrated comparable MACE, NACE, and bleeding outcomes.Conclusion
Following ACS, both de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT and abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy effectively reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischaemic protection. Given that the only available comparison between the two simplified strategies was indirect and showed comparable MACE and NACE outcomes, further research is warranted to determine the optimal individualized approach.
Related
- Impact of stepwise dual antiplatelet therapy de-escalation in patients with multivessel disease undergoing drug-coated balloon angioplasty: insights from the REC-CAGEFREE II trial
- 563 Updated safety and efficacy of AN4005, an oral small-molecule PD-L1 inhibitor, in advanced solid tumors: phase I dose-escalation and expansion
- Preoperative antiplatelet strategies and coronary artery bypass graft outcomes: bleeding and cardiovascular events in 41,696 patients with acute coronary syndrome
- Antiplatelet Therapy Strategies in Patients with High Bleeding Risk Treated with Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Descriptive Study
- Optimising cancer immunotherapy and emerging data supporting de-escalation strategies.
BibTeX
@article{wu2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative efficacy and safety of de-escalation, abbreviation, and standard potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies after acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis.}},
author = {Yee-Jen Wu and Hung-Ju Lin and Yi-Chen Chou and Yen-Hung Lin and Chi-Sheng Hung},
journal = {European heart journal open},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1093/ehjopen/oeag173},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948678},
note = {CC BY-NC},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative efficacy and safety of de-escalation, abbreviation, and standard potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies after acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis.
AU - Yee-Jen Wu
AU - Hung-Ju Lin
AU - Yi-Chen Chou
AU - Yen-Hung Lin
AU - Chi-Sheng Hung
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/01
JO - European heart journal open
DO - 10.1093/ehjopen/oeag173
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42948678
AB - Aims Potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the default antiplatelet strategy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), though de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT and abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy are increasingly adopted to mitigate bleeding risk. However, their relative efficacy and safety remain uncertain.Methods and results Network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were performed to compare three guideline-endorsed strategies: (i) short-term potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based DAPT de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT, (ii) abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy, and (iii) standard 12-month potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor-based DAPT. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary efficacy endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. The key net clinical endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE). PROSPERO (CRD420251144892) Seven randomized controlled trials involving 20 673 patients were included. Both the de-escalation and abbreviation strategies significantly reduced major bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74, P = 0.002; and RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33-0.58, P < 0.001, respectively) and NACE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, P < 0.001; and RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.84, P < 0.001, respectively) without increasing MACE or other ischaemic outcomes. Indirect comparison indicated that de-escalation vs. abbreviation strategies demonstrated comparable MACE, NACE, and bleeding outcomes.Conclusion Following ACS, both de-escalation to clopidogrel-based DAPT and abbreviated DAPT followed by potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy effectively reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischaemic protection. Given that the only available comparison between the two simplified strategies was indirect and showed comparable MACE and NACE outcomes, further research is warranted to determine the optimal individualized approach.
SN - 2752-4191
ER -