4.5 Review

Evolution of Coronary Stent Technology and Implications for Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Journal

PROGRESS IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 60, Issue 4-5, Pages 478-490

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2017.12.004

Keywords

Dual antiplatelet treatment; Drug eluting stent; Coronary stent; Thrombosis; Bleeding

Funding

  1. Amgen
  2. Aralez
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bayer
  5. Biosensors
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  7. Chiesi
  8. Daiichi-Sankyo
  9. Eli Lilly
  10. Janssen
  11. Merck
  12. PLx Pharma
  13. Pfizer
  14. Sanofi
  15. Medicines Company
  16. CeloNova
  17. CSL Behring
  18. Eisai
  19. Gilead
  20. Matsutani Chemical Industry Co.
  21. Novartis
  22. Osprey Medical
  23. Renal Guard Solutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has represented for decades the cornerstone of treatment for the prevention of ischemic complications, including stent thrombosis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Despite the evolution in stent technologies, which has allowed the reduction in the minimum required duration of DAPT, the optimal duration of DAPT to ensure the best safety and efficacy still remains largely debated. Indeed, the results from investigations regarding the optimal DAPT duration based on stent type is limited. Overall, DAPT duration should be defined as a minimal period needed to prevent the vulnerable phase of having stent thrombosis, which may indeed be more stent specific, from that required for secondary prevention of ischemic complications, which may depend on the general risk profile of the patient The present manuscript is an overview on the optimal duration of DAPT after stent implantation, providing an overview on the evolution of stent technology over the past decades and how this has impacted considerations on DAPT duration as well providing future perspectives in the field. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available