Comparison of Different Durations of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Background Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) comprise more than a quarter of all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and are at higher risk of adverse events. We sought to reexamine the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) postpercutaneous coronary intervention in patients with DM. Methods We systematically included randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT that reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), net adverse clinical events (NACE), bleeding, or stent thrombosis in DM, and performed a frequentist network meta-analysis. We also performed a sensitivity analysis of trials that exclusively enrolled patients with acute coronary syndrome. Results In 16 randomized controlled trials comprising 16,376 adults with DM, there was no significant difference in NACE, MACE, stent thrombosis, or major bleeding between pairwise comparisons of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT, except for a signal for lower bleeding with 3 months of DAPT compared to 12 (risk ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.99). Sensitivity analysis of trials that solely included acute coronary syndrome similarly showed no significant difference in MACE between 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT. Conclusions Our study found no meaningful difference in NACE or MACE between pairwise comparisons of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT by study-level meta-analysis of patients with DM, with lower bleeding risk observed with 3 months than with 12 months of DAPT. This finding may provide clinicians greater flexibility to personalize patients’ DAPT duration based on other non-DM comorbidities that might affect bleeding or thrombosis risk.