Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing , and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice.

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly arises from so-called vulnerable coronary plaques, particularly prone for rupture. Vulnerable plaques comprise a specific type of plaque, called the thin-cap fibroatheroma (TFCA). A TCFA is characterized by a large lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin fibrous cap, inflammation, neovascularization, intraplaque hemorrhage, microcalcifications or spotty calcifications, and positive remodeling. Vulnerable plaques are often not visible during coronary angiography. However, different plaque features can be visualized with the use of intracoronary imaging techniques, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), potentially with the addition of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or optical coherence tomography (OCT). Non-invasive imaging techniques, such as computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and nuclear imaging, can be used as an alternative for these invasive imaging techniques. These invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities can be implemented for screening to guide primary or secondary prevention therapies, leading to a more patient-tailored diagnostic and treatment strategy. Systemic pharmaceutical treatment with lipid-lowering or anti-inflammatory medication leads to plaque stabilization and reduction of cardiovascular events. Additionally, ongoing studies are investigating whether modification of vulnerable plaque features with local invasive treatment options leads to plaque stabilization and subsequent cardiovascular risk reduction.

ObjectivesTo validate the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score and examine the extent and impact of the risk–treatment paradox in contemporary patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).MethodsData from 5015 patients with ACS enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry between January 2015 and December 2019 were used for model validation. The performance of the GRACE risk score for predicting in-hospital and 1-year mortality was evaluated based on indices of model discrimination and calibration. Differences in the delivery of guideline-recommended care among patients who survived hospitalisation (n=4911) per GRACE risk stratum were assessed and the association with postdischarge mortality was examined.ResultsDiscriminative power of the GRACE risk score was good for predicting in-hospital (c-statistic: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.90) and 1-year mortality (c-statistic: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.84). However, the GRACE risk score overestimated the absolute in-hospital and 1-year mortality risk (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test p<0.01). Intermediate-risk and high-risk patients were 12% and 29% less likely to receive optimal guideline-recommended care compared with low-risk patients, respectively. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsThe GRACE risk score identified patients at higher risk for in-hospital and 1-year mortality, but overestimated absolute risk levels in contemporary patients. Optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with lower mortality in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients, but was less likely to be delivered with increasing mortality risk.