Aims: The dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) score is meant to aid clinicians choose the DAPT duration but attempts to examine the external validity of the DAPT score and its decision tool have reported mostly disappointing results. Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis of all available data on the external validity of the DAPT score.
Methods and results: We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that examined the external validity of the DAPT score/its decision tool. Seven studies (77 274 patients) were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 (median 18) months. Overall, high (≥2) DAPT score was associated with increased risk for myocardial infarction (MI)/stent thrombosis (ST) [odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-1.69; P < 0.01], and lower risk for bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97; P = 0.01). In the high DAPT score stratum, extended (12-24 months), as compared to standard (6-12 months) DAPT duration was associated with a reduction in the risk for MI/ST (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.94; P = 0.02), and no difference in the risk for bleeding (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.65-1.66; P = 0.88), while in the low DAPT score stratum, extended DAPT duration was associated with no difference in the risk for MI/ST (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76-1.43; P = 0.80), and an increased risk for bleeding (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.15-2.15; P < 0.01).
Conclusions: This first meta-analysis of studies examining the external validation of the DAPT score and its decision tool, our results suggest that the DAPT score is useful both for stratifying post-percutaneous coronary intervention patients into risk strata for future ischaemic and bleeding events as well aiding in choosing the optimal DAPT duration for the individual patient.
Keywords: Coronary artery disease; DAPT score; Dual antiplatelet therapy; Percutaneous coronary intervention.
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.