SMART-DATE - 6 vs 12 months of DAPT after PCI for ACS
Bottom line: In patients with ACS who underwent PCI, shorter DAPT (~6 months) increased the risk of recurrent MI (NNH 100) without any clear reduction in bleeding versus a standard DAPT duration of 12+ months.
Patients (n=2712)
- Setting: South Korea from Sept 2012 to Dec 2015
- Included:
- ACS (STEMI, NSTEMI or unstable angina)
- At least 1 lesions in a native coronary vessel with stenosis >50% amenable to PCI with stents
- Excluded: Contraindication to antiplatelets, drug-eluting stent coating, or contrast media; Active bleeding, major bleeding within 3 months, or major surgery within 2 months; History of bleeding diathesis or known coagulopathy; Planned elective surgical procedure within next 12 months
- Baseline characteristics:
- Age 62 y
- Women 25%
- ACS subtype: STEMI 38%, NSTEMI 31%, unstable angina 31%
- Prior MI 2%, previous revasc 5%
- Angiography: Multivessel CAD 45%, left main 2%, LAD 59%, bifurcation lesion 9%
- Other PMHx: Smoker 39%, HTN 49%, diabetes 27%
Intervention & control
- Intervention: Short DAPT duration (x6 months)
- Median DAPT duration 6.1 months
- Adherence to study protocol: 74%
- Used clopidogrel as P2Y12 inhibitor: 80%
- Control: Standard DAPT duration (x12+ months)
- Median DAPT duration 17.7 months
- Adherence to study protocol: 96%
- Used clopidogrel as P2Y12 inhibitor: 82%
- Both groups: DAPT consisted of ASA + P2Y12 inhibitor at standard doses
Results (from PCI to 18 months after PCI)
Efficacy
- 1o outcome (composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke): DAPTx6months 4.7%, x12+ months 4.2%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.13 (0.79-1.62)
- Absolute risk difference 0.5% (upper limit 1.8% < 2.0% non-inferiority margin, p=0.03 for non-inferiority)
- Post-hoc landmark analysis from month 6 to 18: HR 1.69 (0.97-2.94)
- Death: 2.6% vs 2.9%, HR 0.90 (0.57-1.42)
- MI: 1.8% vs 0.8%, HR 2.41 (1.15-5.05) - number needed to harm (NNH) 100
- Post-hoc landmark analysis from month 6 to 18: HR 5.06 (1.46-17.47)
- Stroke: 0.8% vs 0.9%
- Stent thrombosis: 1.1% vs 0.7%
Safety
- BARC 2-5 bleeding: 2.7% vs 3.9%, HR 0.69 (0.45-1.05)
- Major bleeding: 0.5% vs 0.8%, HR 0.60 (0.22-1.65)
Generalizability
- This trial enrolled a generally representative group of Asian patients with ACS undergoing PCI predominantly treated with DAPT consisting of ASA + clopidogrel
- Study investigators were hesitant to comply with the study protocol; 26% of patients in the 6-month group continued to receive DAPT beyond 6 months
- Although the authors claimed to randomize at the time of PCI rather than 6 months later in order to avoid "selection bias, resulting in enrolment of low-risk patients," it's likely that any "high-risk patients" would not have been considered & therefore not enrolled into this trial.
Risk of bias
- Low risk of allocation bias
- Web-based randomization;
- Computer-generated block randomization;
- Stratified by (1) enrolment site, (2) ACS subtype, (3) diabetes (y/n), (4) type of P2Y12 inhibitor after prasugrel/ticagrelor became available, & randomized to 1 of 3 drug-eluting stents (eluting everolimus [Xience Prime], zotarolimus [Resolute Integrity], or biolimus [BioMatrix Flex]).
- High risk of performance & detection bias
- Randomization occurred immediately after PCI rather than at month 6, allowing for differences in performance & collection of outcomes prior to patients receiving allocated treatment (stopping or continuing DAPT at 6 months);
- Participants & personnel not blinded to treatment allocation;
- 26% of patients in 6-month group did not comply with the study intervention of stopping DAPT at month 6.
- Low risk of attrition bias
- 2.5% loss-to-follow-up (3.0% vs 1.9%);
- ITT analysis.
- Non-inferiority design not clearly justified
- Wide non-inferiority margin of 2.0% absolute risk difference justified based on feasibility (assuming 4.5% incidence of 1o outcome @ 18 months in 12-month group);
- Non-inferiority criteria based on above wide non-inferiority margin met for primary outcome, however, MI - key component of this composite - was clinically and statistically significantly higher in the short DAPT group;
- Inclusion of period from PCI to month 6, when both groups were intended to receive DAPT, biases the results toward non-inferiority. The post-hoc landmark analysis evaluating outcomes from month 6 to 18 demonstrates a greater difference between groups, supporting the conclusion that DAPT x6 months is inferior to 12+ months;
- Similar results between ITT & per-protocol analysis, although with the above limitations.