Discussion
Using nationwide healthcare claims data, we examined the longitudinal effect of APT on cerebral infarction and major haemorrhage throughout the long-term period following SACE and identified the optimal time to discontinue APT in patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysm treated with SACE. In real-world practice in South Korea, APT was discontinued in only one-fifth of the patients 1 year after SACE. Approximately 2% of patients experienced a cerebral infarction, and 1% suffered major haemorrhage events following SACE. In the multivariable time-dependent model, considering three distinct periods after SACE, APT was associated with a reduced risk of cerebral infarction in the initial 1 year and an increased risk of major haemorrhage 2 years after SACE.
The optimal duration of APT after SACE remains uncertain, particularly regarding its safety in the chronic phase after SACE.5 14 Balancing thrombosis and haemorrhagic risks is crucial when applying APT after stent implantation. Existing guidelines and studies related to atherosclerotic coronary and intracranial artery diseases recommend lifelong APT poststent implantation.2 21–24 For stent implantation during SACE for unruptured cerebral aneurysm, which is typically performed in non-atherosclerotic arteries, the risk of thromboembolic risk is lower compared with stent implantation at atherosclerotic arteries, suggesting that a potentially less aggressive strategy of APT might be a reasonable consideration for this population.
Neurointerventionalists generally agree that the use of APT after SACE does not need to be lifelong.8–13 A French national survey revealed that only 16% of centres prescribed lifelong APT after SACE.13 Complete endothelialisation of the stent reduces the need for lifelong APT by ensuring a living, non-thrombogenic surface within the lumen of the parent artery and eliminating direct stent-blood flow contact.25 Given the inherent bleeding risks associated with APT, lifelong maintenance of APT might not be a theoretically reasonable approach. A study using rat aneurysm models indicated early neointima formation 4 weeks after SACE,26 and confirmed complete endothelialisation 4 months after SACE in a postmortem study.27 Although previous retrospective studies predominantly relied on descriptive results, they proposed diverse regional protocols (3–24 months) for the safe timing for discontinuation of APT after SACE.8–12 All of these protocols emphasised the selection of patients with a low risk of ischaemia and documented complete neointimalisation of the parent artery.8–12 In line with the previous studies, our study findings suggest that APT benefits cerebral infarction prevention until 1 year after SACE,8–13 making it a reasonable strategy to consider discontinuing APT at that time.
APT is also associated with an increased risk of haemorrhage. Numerous studies have consistently reported that APT is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications; hence, its routine use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is not recommended.28–30 As a result, recent studies have emphasised the importance of safety in reducing haemorrhagic events as much as the efficacy of APT in decreasing ischaemic events.31 32 Similar to the strategy of transition from DAPT to SAPT in patients with stent implantation for atherosclerotic diseases,2 21 22 temporary APT was a reasonable treatment approach in patients with cerebral aneurysm after SACE, especially considering that stent implantation in SACE typically occurs in non-atherosclerotic parent arteries. Our study findings showed that APT was linked to an increased risk of major haemorrhage beyond 2 years after SACE. Since the benefit of APT in reducing cerebral infarction was observed only until 1 year after SACE in this study, discontinuing APT 1 year after SACE and at least 2 years after SACE is reasonable. Given the wide CI for the risk of major haemorrhage within the 1 year after SACE, as well as an increasing tendency towards major bleeding throughout the study period, it is important to note that the risk of haemorrhage should be considered even in the short-term after SACE, and strategies to minimise the duration of APT should be employed as much as possible.
To date, limited data are available regarding the maintenance of APT after SACE in patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysm in real-world clinical practices. In our study, which included a substantial number of patients with unruptured cerebral aneurysm treated with SACE (n=17 340) and used a nationwide health insurance database, long-term maintenance of APT was common in South Korea. Specifically, 1 year after SACE, only 20% of the patients discontinued APT. Furthermore, approximately half of the patients continued to be treated with APT, even 2 years after SACE. These findings indicate a significantly lower percentage of APT discontinuation compared with the results of the aforementioned French national survey, which reported that APT was maintained for 6, 12 and 12–24 months and lifelong in 16%, 57%, 11% and 16% of centres following SACE for cerebral aneurysm.13 Considering the potentially increased risk of bleeding complications associated with the prolonged use of APT after SACE, appropriate discontinuation of APT is necessary.
This study had several limitations. First, given the retrospective cohort nature of this study, without direct intervention, there exists a potential for residual confounding. Second, in the claims data, we could not identify the location of the artery where SACE was performed and cerebral infarction occurred; therefore, determining whether the occurrence of cerebral infarction was related to the SACE procedure was impossible. Information regarding aneurysm characteristics, SACE procedure-associated factors including stent type, no recanalisation of the aneurysm, adequate stent apposition without deformity, retreatment, and, most importantly, results of follow-up angiography regarding neointima formation were unavailable,8–12 given the basis of this study on a nationwide claims-based cohort study. Third, its generalisability may be limited to South Korean cohorts. Fourth, given the extended inclusion period from 2009 to 2020, changes in the devices and techniques may have occurred and influenced the clinical outcomes. Finally, our analysis excluded patients with prior stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular procedures or atrial fibrillation; thus, the findings may not extend to those with a high thromboembolic risk. Nonetheless, this study synthesised real-world data from a substantial cohort of unruptured cerebral aneurysm patients treated with SACE using nationwide healthcare claims data. The utilisation of prescription records enabled us to employ APT as a time-dependent variable, which is more robust than time-fixed model.33