Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mattia Galli, Stefano Benenati, Davide Capodanno, Francesco Franchi, Fabiana Rollini, Domenico D'Amario, Italo Porto, Dominick J. Angiolillo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Whether guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in improving outcomes compared with standard antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. We assessed the safety and efficacy of guided versus standard selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, from Aug 20 to Oct 25, 2020, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies published in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, by means of platelet function testing or genetic testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were used with random-effects or fixed-effect models according to the estimated heterogeneity among studies assessed by the I2 index. Coprimary endpoints were trial-defined primary major adverse cardiovascular events and any bleeding. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and major and minor bleeding. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021215901). Findings: 3656 potentially relevant articles were screened. Our analysis included 11 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with data for 20 743 patients. Compared with standard therapy, guided selection of antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63–0·95, p=0·015) and reduced bleeding, although not statistically significant (RR 0·88, 0·77–1·01, p=0·069). Cardiovascular death (RR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59–1·00, p=0·049), myocardial infarction (RR 0·76, 0·60–0·96, p=0·021), stent thrombosis (RR 0·64, 0·46–0·89, p=0·011), stroke (RR 0·66, 0·48–0·91, p=0·010), and minor bleeding (RR 0·78, 0·67–0·92, p=0·0030) were reduced with guided therapy compared with standard therapy. Risks of all-cause death and major bleeding did not differ between guided and standard approaches. Outcomes varied according to the strategy used, with an escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in ischaemic events without any trade-off in safety, and a de-escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in bleeding, without any trade-off in efficacy. Interpretation: Guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improved both composite and individual efficacy outcomes with a favourable safety profile, driven by a reduction in minor bleeding, supporting the use of platelet function or genetic testing to optimise the choice of agent in patients undergoing PCI. Funding: None.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1470-1483
Number of pages14
JournalThe Lancet
Volume397
Issue number10283
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 17 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this