One- versus three-month dual antiplatelet therapy in high bleeding risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A short dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration has been proposed for patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing drug-eluting coronary stent (DES) implantation. Whether this strategy is safe and effective after a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) remains uncertain. AIMS: We aimed to compare the impact of 1-month versus 3-month DAPT on clinical outcomes after DES implantation among HBR patients with or without NSTE-ACS. METHODS: This is a prespecified analysis from the XIENCE Short DAPT programme involving three prospective, international, single-arm studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of 1-month (XIENCE 28 USA and Global) or 3-month (XIENCE 90) DAPT among HBR patients after implantation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. Ischaemic and bleeding outcomes associated with 1- versus 3-month DAPT were assessed according to clinical presentation using propensity score stratification. RESULTS: Of 3,364 HBR patients (1,392 on 1-month DAPT and 1,972 on 3-month DAPT), 1,164 (34.6%) underwent DES implantation for NSTE-ACS. At 12 months, the risk of the primary endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was similar between 1- and 3-month DAPT in patients with (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.65) and without NSTE-ACS (HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.63-1.23; p-interaction=0.34). The key secondary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 2-5 bleeding was consistently reduced in both NSTE-ACS (HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37-0.88) and stable patients (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.61-1.15; p-interaction=0.15) with 1-month DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: Among HBR patients undergoing implantation of an everolimus-eluting stent, 1-month, compared to 3-month DAPT, was associated with similar ischaemic risk and reduced bleeding at 1 year, irrespective of clinical presentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".