4.6 Editorial Material

Longer or shorter dual antiplatelet therapy in dialysis patients receiving a coronary drug-eluting stent? A rope game still ongoing

Journal

CLINICAL KIDNEY JOURNAL
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 749-752

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa040

Keywords

coronary artery disease; DAPT; dialysis; drug-eluting stent; end-stage renal disease; evidence-based therapies

Funding

  1. Romanian Academy of Medical Sciences
  2. European Regional Development Fund [107124, 2/Axa 1/31.07.2017/107124 SMIS]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Park et al. presents the results of a nationwide population-based trial that included >5000 dialysis patients receiving a drug-eluting stent (DES). The main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and the safety of prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The primary outcome was a composite of mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization and stroke, significantly lowered by a longer DAPT regimen at 12, 15 and 18 months, respectively. Longer DAPT tended to be correlated with higher bleeding events at all landmarks, with no statistical significance. An important element was that almost 75% of the index events were acute coronary syndromes. This study presents the first solid evidence for a significant benefit of prolonged DAPT in dialysis patients receiving a DES. We believe that end-stage renal disease is still in the middle of a rope game, being pulled to one side or another by other features, inclining towards a higher bleeding risk or towards higher ischaemic risk. The acute versus elective presentation seems to weigh in choosing the antiplatelet regimen. The 'Yone-size-fits-all strategy' is not suitable for this particular group. Probably in the future, practitioners will be provided with decision pathways generated by artificial intelligence algorithms yielding 'truly individualized' DAPT protocols for every single patient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available