Sungwook Byun

Byun S, et al. Korean Circ J. 2025 Jun;55:e113. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2025.0206

Current guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) recommend potent P2Y12 inhibitors rather than clopidogrel to prevent ischemic events. However, their ischemic benefits are offset by an increased major bleeding risk. We compared the efficacy and safety of triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol in the first month after AMI. This study investigated 16,643 AMI patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) in nationwide, real-world, multicenter registries in Korea. Patients were divided into DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel, n = 11,285), Triple (aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol, n = 2547), and Potent (aspirin and ticagrelor/prasugrel, n = 2811) groups. The primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and TIMI major bleeding one month after AMI. After adjusting for covariates, there were no statistically significant differences in the risk of death from any cause, MI, or stroke between the three groups. However, the risk of TIMI major bleeding was significantly greater in the Potent group than in the DAPT and Triple groups (p < 0.001). Accordingly, NACE was significantly higher in the DAPT (HR 1.265; 95% CI 1.006–1.591, p = 0.044) and Potent groups (HR 1.515; 95% CI 1.142–2.011, p = 0.004) than in the Triple group. Triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol was associated with an improved net clinical outcome in the first month after AMI without increasing the risk of bleeding compared to potent or standard P2Y12 inhibitor-based DAPT.

Limited data exist on the temporal trend of major bleeding and its prediction by the Academic Research Consortium-High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We investigated 10-year trends of major bleeding and predictive ability of the ARC-HBR criteria in AMI patients. In a multicenter registry of 10,291 AMI patients undergoing PCI between 2004 and 2014 the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 and 5 bleeding was assessed, and, outcomes in ARC-defined HBR patients with AMI were compared with those in non-HBR. The primary outcome was BARC 3 and 5 bleeding at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The annual incidence of BARC 3 and 5 bleeding in the AMI population has increased over the years (1.8% to 5.8%; p < 0.001). At 1 year, ARC-defined HBR (n = 3371, 32.8%) had significantly higher incidence of BARC 3 and 5 bleeding (9.8% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (22.8% vs. 4.3%; p < 0.001) and composite of ischemic events (22.6% vs. 5.8%; p < 0.001) compared to non-HBR. During the past decade, the incidence of major bleeding in the AMI population has increased. The ARC-HBR criteria provided reliable predictions for major bleeding, mortality, and ischemic events in AMI patients.