Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Score
Predicts which patients will benefit from prolonged DAPT after coronary stent placement.
ErstellerAnweisungen
Utilize for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement to determine the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).
The DAPT Score is a clinical prediction tool that helps decide whether a patient should continue dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) beyond 12 months after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement, out to 30 months. Unlike bleeding-only tools, it uniquely weighs both ischemic benefit and bleeding harm together in a single score, rather than assessing one risk in isolation.
Development
The score was derived by Yeh et al. (published in JAMA, 2016) from the DAPT Study, a randomized trial of 11,648 patients who had a drug-eluting stent placed and completed 12 months of thienopyridine plus aspirin without an ischemic or bleeding event, then were randomized to either continue thienopyridine plus aspirin for another 18 months or switch to placebo plus aspirin. It was later externally validated in 8,136 patients from the PROTECT trial. Only patients who tolerated the first year without a major event were eligible — those with prior bleeding, MI, stent thrombosis, stroke, revascularization, or on oral anticoagulation were excluded from the derivation population.
Scoring Components
9 factors, range −2 to +10
Risk Factor | Points |
|---|---|
Age ≥75 years | −2 |
Age 65–74 years | −1 |
Age <65 years | 0 |
Current or recent (past year) cigarette smoking | +1 |
Diabetes mellitus | +1 |
MI at presentation | +1 |
Prior PCI or prior MI | +1 |
Stent diameter <3 mm | +1 |
Paclitaxel-eluting stent | +1 |
CHF or LVEF <30% | +2 |
Vein graft (saphenous vein graft) stent PCI | +2 |
Notably, age is the only factor that subtracts points — reflecting that older patients tend to have relatively more bleeding risk than ischemic benefit from prolonged therapy — while all other factors add points, reflecting higher ischemic risk.
Interpretation
Score | Ischemia/bleeding Risk* | Recommendation** |
|---|---|---|
≥2 | High Risk |
|
<2 | Low Risk |
|
*Ischemia was defined as MI, stroke, repeat coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Bleeding was defined as intracerebral bleeding, bleeding causing hemodynamic compromise requiring treatment, or bleeding requiring transfusion.
**From ACC guidelines (Levine 2016).
In the derivation cohort, a DAPT score ≥2 was associated with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 33 to prevent one ischemic event, versus a number needed to harm (NNH) of 263 for a bleeding event with prolonged therapy — supporting extended DAPT in that group.
Related/Complementary Score: PRECISE-DAPT
The DAPT score is often used alongside the PRECISE-DAPT score, a separate 5-item bleeding-focused tool (age, creatinine clearance, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and prior spontaneous bleeding) that ranges from 0–100 points, with ≥25 indicating high bleeding risk favoring a shorter DAPT duration (3–6 months). A simplified 4-item version (dropping WBC count) has also been shown to retain predictive value. Some studies use both scores together — for example, a DAPT score ≥2 combined with a PRECISE-DAPT score <25 has been used to support recommending prolonged DAPT.
Practical note: As with the other scores discussed, the DAPT Score is meant to support — not replace — individualized clinical decision-making, particularly since it was derived from a specific trial population (drug-eluting stent recipients who tolerated the first year of DAPT without complications).
Alle Fragen und möglichen Ergebnisse
Patient DetailsTitel nicht sichtbar
Age (years)
Select one option:
- ≥75
- 65-74
- <65
Cigarette smoking
Smoking within 1 year prior to index procedure.
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Diabetes mellitus
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
MI at presentation
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Prior PCI or prior MI
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Stent diameter <3 mm
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
CHF or LVEF <30%
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Vein graft stent
Select one option:
- No
- Yes
Mögliche Ergebnisse
DAPT Score: HIGH Risk (Ischemia/bleeding*) - Prolonged DAPT recommended**
DAPT Scores ≥2
Associated with a lower risk in bleeding complications and higher reduction in ischemic events.
Prolonged DAPT (i.e., from 12-30 months) may provide greater benefit than harm.
*Ischemia was defined as MI, stroke, repeat coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Bleeding was defined as intracerebral bleeding, bleeding causing hemodynamic compromise requiring treatment, or bleeding requiring transfusion.
**From ACC guidelines (Levine 2016).
Considerations
Clinical judgement and best practice (e.g. current cardiology guidelines) supersedes adjunct standalone decision tools.
Risk and benefits of anticoagulation should be considered in patients, to include shared decsion-making and informed consent, prior to initiating therapy.
Address modifiable risk factors for bleeding.
Frequent monitoring to reassess DAPT needs and adjust therapy may be necessary.
DAPT Score: LOW Risk (Ischemia/bleeding*) - Prolonged DAPT NOT recommended**
DAPT Scores <2
Associated with a greater risk in bleeding complications and smaller reduction in ischemic events.
Prolonged DAPT (i.e., from 12-30 months) may cause greater harm than benefit.
*Ischemia was defined as MI, stroke, repeat coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Bleeding was defined as intracerebral bleeding, bleeding causing hemodynamic compromise requiring treatment, or bleeding requiring transfusion.
**From ACC guidelines (Levine 2016).
Considerations
Clinical judgement and best practice (e.g. current cardiology guidelines) supersedes adjunct standalone decision tools.
Risk and benefits of anticoagulation should be considered in patients, to include shared decsion-making and informed consent, prior to initiating therapy.
Address modifiable risk factors for bleeding.
Frequent monitoring to reassess DAPT needs and adjust therapy may be necessary.
Zitat
Yeh RW, Secemsky EA, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Development and Validation of a Prediction Rule for Benefit and Harm of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1735–1749.
Literatur
Yeh RW, Secemsky EA, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Development and Validation of a Prediction Rule for Benefit and Harm of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Beyond 1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1735–1749.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2508253Piccolo R, Gargiulo G, Franzone A, Santucci A, Ariotti S, Baldo A, Tumscitz C, Moschovitis A, Windecker S, Valgimigli M. Use of the Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy Score to Guide Treatment Duration After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Jul 4;167(1):17-25.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28605779/Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Massaro JM, Cutlip DE, Steg PG, Wiviott SD, Mauri L; DAPT Study Investigators. DAPT Score Utility for Risk Prediction in Patients With or Without Previous Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 May 31;67(21):2492-502.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27046159/Yoshikawa Y, Shiomi H, Watanabe H, Natsuaki M, Kondo H, Tamura T, Nakagawa Y, Morimoto T, Kimura T. Validating Utility of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Score in a Large Pooled Cohort From 3 Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Studies. Circulation. 2018 Feb 6;137(6):551-562.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28982692/Banerjee, S, Angiolillo, D, Boden, W. et al. Use of Antiplatelet Therapy/DAPT for Post-PCI Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. JACC. 2017 Apr, 69 (14) 1861–1870.
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.012?_ga=2.168254563.399869864.1527882860-1363800592.1527882860Levine, G, Bates, E, Bittl, J. et al. 2016 ACC/AHA Guideline Focused Update on Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. JACC. 2016 Sep, 68 (10) 1082–1115.
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.513
- Ersteller
Dr. Robert W. Yeh, MDAssociate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Director of the Richard and Susan Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
- Bereitgestellt von
EVAL Foundation
- Mitwirkender · Prüfer
Jennifer Glen, DNP, FNP-BCEVAL Health, Chief Medical Officer EVAL Foundation