Stopping dual antiplatelet therapy after one month,
does it really help with Noninferior clinical outcomes with less bleeding after PCI in high-bleeding-risk patients?
research showsGrade B, 72 points. The three ranked primary outcomes were noninferiority for net adverse clinical events and major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, plus superiority for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Rates were 7.5% vs 7.7%, 6.1% vs 5.9%, and 6.5% vs 9.4%, respectively; all three planned tests passed.
ads claimThe specific less-is-more benefit was bleeding: 148/2,295 (6.5%) versus 211/2,284 (9.4%), HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.84), absolute difference -2.82 points (95% CI -4.40 to -1.24).
Useful facts when choosing a product
- Randomization occurred one month after PCI among event-free high-bleeding-risk patients.
- The first two outcomes used PP and bleeding used ITT.
- Terumo funded the trial.
What the research actually shows
Four-gate review: ① Noninferiority design ② listed item ③ the paper calls it a "randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial with sequential superiority testing" ④ avoidable through superiority design, so counted. ① Active control only ② listed item ③ different necessary DAPT durations were compared after PCI ④ a no-antiplatelet placebo arm was not feasible, so not counted. ① Unmasked subjective endpoint ② listed item ③ open label, but clinical events were adjudicated by an independent committee ④ criterion not met. All three primary tests passed.
Why this is classified as B (72)
A 4,579-person hard-outcome trial met two noninferiority and one superiority hypothesis. Manufacturer funding and noninferiority design give B, 72.
Counterpoint. The result applies after one event-free month with the studied stent context.
Rejudgment record. Source checked — Both clinical-event noninferiority tests and bleeding superiority were met
| Endpoint | H | Hard endpoint - actual events such as death |
| Replication | R1 | Single confirmatory trial |
| Independence | I0 | Evidence comes only from manufacturer studies |
| Effect size | E+ | Meets the clinically important threshold |
The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).
Sub-claim grades by effect
This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.
| Effect (sub-claim) | Grade | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Noninferior net and cardiac or cerebral events | B | Both noninferiority tests passed. |
| Reduced relevant bleeding | B | Absolute reduction was 2.82 points. |
Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | Multicenter open-label randomized noninferiority trial with sequential superiority testing | 2,284 | Funded by Terumo; European Cardiovascular Research Institute served as sponsor | Noninferiority for net adverse clinical events and major cardiac or cerebral events; superiority for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding | 7.5% vs 7.7%; 6.1% vs 5.9%; bleeding 6.5% vs 9.4%, HR 0.68 (0.55-0.84), difference -2.82 points (-4.40 to -1.24) | Large hard-outcome evidence |
Receipt — 1 References
All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none
Cite this verdict
[Chamgap] Benefit of Stopping Dual Antiplatelet Therapy at One Month for Noninferior Clinical Events after PCI in Patients at High Bleeding Risk — Evidence Grade B·72. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/one-month-dapt-high-bleeding-risk-pci-clinical-events/ · CC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.
What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.