Clinical Cases in Pharmacology Clinical Cases  ·  Cardiovascular  ·  Coronary Artery Disease  ·  Ticagrelor Alone or a Full Year of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy
Cardiovascular Vol. I, Case 0170 — Coronary Artery Disease

Ticagrelor Alone or a Full Year of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

A single patient whose stenting was complex enough to argue for a full year of dual therapy, and whose lab work argues just as directly for stopping one drug early. The disagreement is about which risk actually carries more weight for him specifically.

Abbreviations, terms, and other agents mentioned in this case PCI — percutaneous coronary intervention  ·  HBR — high bleeding risk  ·  ARC-HBR — Academic Research Consortium criteria defining high bleeding risk after PCI
Presentation

J.K., a 59-year-old man, got back on a bicycle for the first time in a decade this spring, once his kids left for college and his weekends opened back up, and has been riding with a local group most Saturday mornings since. He has no diabetes and well-controlled hypertension, but a routine complete blood count ahead of his procedure turned up a hemoglobin of 11.2 — mild, previously unnoticed anemia, cause still under separate workup. He underwent PCI last week for stable but extensive three-vessel disease, requiring three stents and a total stent length long enough that the operators flagged him as high ischemic risk on their own procedural notes.

He now carries two things that don't usually travel together on the same patient: a procedural profile that argues for a full, standard course of dual antiplatelet therapy, and a laboratory finding — his anemia — that counts as a minor bleeding-risk criterion under the ARC-HBR framework. The TWILIGHT trial found that dropping aspirin after three months of standard dual therapy and continuing ticagrelor alone reduced bleeding substantially, without an increase in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke through the following year. How closely he actually matches that trial is itself part of the argument: TWILIGHT required at least one clinical and at least one angiographic high-risk feature, and while his stent burden clears the angiographic bar easily, he meets none of the clinical ones — he is under sixty-five, not diabetic, has normal renal function, and had no prior vascular event. Anemia was not among the trial's own qualifying criteria at all, which is why the team keeps returning to his labs rather than treating the trial as a straight population match.

J.K. · 59 Post-PCI, Day 6
History
Hypertension, well-controlled; no diabetes
Presentation
Stable three-vessel disease, PCI with 3 stents, long total stent length
Labs
Hemoglobin 11.2 g/dL (new finding), workup pending
Procedural risk
High ischemic risk per procedural complexity; meets one minor ARC-HBR bleeding criterion (hemoglobin 11.2 g/dL)
Cardiac function
LVEF 56%
Renal function
eGFR 84

Two risks that don't usually travel together

Interventional Cardiologist Opening

Three stents and a long total stent length is a real ischemic-risk profile, and my instinct with a case that complex is the full standard year of dual therapy. I don't want to under-treat a patient whose anatomy alone would justify the longer course, anemia or not.

Interventional Cardiologist Response

His anemia isn't incidental to this decision — a hemoglobin of 11.2 is a recognized minor ARC-HBR criterion, and TWILIGHT enrolled patients carrying at least one clinical and one angiographic feature putting them at raised ischemic or bleeding risk. I'll grant that he clears the angiographic bar and not the clinical one, so this is extrapolation rather than a literal match. But dropping aspirin at three months and continuing ticagrelor alone showed a real bleeding reduction without giving up anything on the ischemic side, and his complexity is a reason to look hard at that finding, not to override it.

The instinct to treat a complex procedure more aggressively makes sense in the abstract, but TWILIGHT's whole point was that "complex enough to worry about ischemia" and "safe enough to shorten aspirin" aren't mutually exclusive — the trial's patients were both at once.

Clinical Pharmacologist Final

Worth being precise about the mechanics here: TWILIGHT dropped the aspirin, not the ticagrelor. He stays on ticagrelor monotherapy after the three-month mark, which is what actually carries the antiplatelet protection forward — this isn't stepping down to a weaker regimen, it's removing the second drug that was adding bleeding risk without adding much protection on top of ticagrelor alone. I'd plan the switch at his three-month follow-up, timed to a recheck of his hemoglobin and the results of his anemia workup. One thing worth naming out loud, since it isn't the default: clopidogrel, not ticagrelor, is the guideline P2Y12 agent for elective PCI in stable coronary disease. He is on ticagrelor here because the aspirin-dropping strategy was tested on ticagrelor specifically and does not transfer to clopidogrel — that is a deliberate choice made for the monotherapy plan, not a reflex.

Regimen selected
Ticagrelor
P2Y12 Inhibitor · 90 mg twice daily, monotherapy after 3 months
Carries the antiplatelet protection forward alone once aspirin is dropped, per TWILIGHT. The full 90 mg twice-daily dose continues unchanged — the reduced 60 mg dose belongs to the PEGASUS long-term regimen, not this one.
Aspirin
Antiplatelet · First 3 months only
Discontinued at the three-month mark given his anemia and the extrapolated TWILIGHT reasoning, even though he does not meet the trial's own clinical entry criteria, rather than continued for a full year.
Where this was left

Standard dual antiplatelet therapy continued for the first three months, with a plan already on the calendar to drop aspirin and continue ticagrelor alone at that point, timed to a repeat hemoglobin and the results of his ongoing anemia workup.

Educational content only — a composite teaching case, not a real patient encounter or a substitute for clinical guidance. About These Cases →