SynthesisAmerican heart journal2022
Shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in American heart journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Antithrombotic Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review of Risk-Stratified Approaches.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Pooled it
- Abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Shorter Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Older Adults After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Very Short Versus Longer Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of Single Antiplatelet, Dual Antiplatelet, and Anticoagulation Plus Antiplatelet Therapy on Branch Vessel Patency and Bleeding Risk Following Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Article
- Intersections and Challenges in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome and Stroke: Pathophysiology, Treatment Dilemmas, and Integrated Prevention Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Sex Differences in the Safety and Efficacy of Different Durations of DAPT After PCI.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Gastrointestinal Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.Cureus · 2024Article
- Elevated Leukocyte Count and Platelet-Derived Thrombogenicity Measured Using the Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Observational
- Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Review
- Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Navigating Through Clinical Challenges.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2024Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Thirty-Day Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- A prospective study comparing short versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: design and rationale of the TARGET-FIRST trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe decision to shorten the duration of DAPT following PCI in patients with ACS remains controversial because of the concern for increased ischemic events.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search in seven databases to explore the efficacy of 1 to 3 months of DAPT in patients who underwent PCI for ACS. Randomized controlled trials that compared 1 to 3 months with 6 to 12 months of DAPT after PCI for ACS were identified. Integrated hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by random effects model for each prespecified outcome of interest. Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the association of outcomes with select patient characteristics.
resultsA total of 9 randomized controlled trials consisting of 25,907 patients were included. There was no difference in the hazard of NACE (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.07) and MACE (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.17) between 1 and 3 months of DAPT and 6 to 12 months of DAPT. However, implementing 1 to 3 months of DAPT was associated with lower hazard of both any bleeding (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66) and major bleeding (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.36-0.62). Meta-regression revealed a nonsignificant but increasing trend of both NACE and MACE with greater proportion of left main and left anterior descending coronary artery lesions and greater proportion of STEMI included in the trials.
conclusionOur findings suggest that 1 to 3 months of DAPT has similar efficacy for preventing ischemic events with reduced bleeding risk compared with 6 to 12 months of DAPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.