Impact of 6-versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy on clinical prognosis in patients with high bleeding risk: Insights from the 4-year results of the I LOVE IT 2 study

Objectives To explore the impact of 6- versus 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on the clinical prognosis of high bleeding risk (HBR) patients. Background The optimal DAPT duration after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in HBR patients is unclear. Methods This study is a post hoc analysis of the 4-year clinical follow-up results of the I LOVE IT 2 study. Prevalence and prognosis of HBR patients were explored, and clinical outcomes of HBR patients who underwent 6- versus 12-month DAPT were compared. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding. The secondary outcomes were BARC type 2-5 bleeding and net clinical adverse events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven revascularization, stroke, stent thrombosis, or any bleeding events. Results HBR occurred in 440 of 2,737 patients (16.0%). HBR patients were associated with a higher risk of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (2.95 vs. 1.52%, p = .03), NACE (31.82 vs. 25.99%, p = .01), all-cause death (5.68 vs. 3.13%, p = .008) and stroke (9.09 vs. 3.83%, p < .001) than non-HBR patients at 4 years. There were no significant differences in BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (3.07 vs. 2.76%, p = 1.00) or NACE rate (31.9 vs. 33.8%, p = .72) between patients who underwent 6- and 12-month DAPT. Conclusions HBR patients are at a higher risk of long-term bleeding and ischemic events than non-HBR patients. The safety and efficacy of 6- and 12-month DAPT were comparable in HBR patients.