Review Article

TWILIGHT: A Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin Beginning at 3 Months in High-risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating


A P2Y12 inhibitor-based monotherapy after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy is emerging as a plausible strategy to decrease bleeding events in high-risk patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT), a randomized double-blind trial, tested this approach by dropping aspirin at 3 months and continuing with ticagrelor monotherapy for an additional 12 months. The study enrolled 9,006 patients, of whom 7,119 who tolerated 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy were randomized after 3 months into two arms: ticagrelor plus placebo and ticagrelor plus aspirin. The primary endpoint of interest, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, occurred less frequently in the experimental arm (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.45–0.68]; p<0.001), whereas the secondary endpoint of ischemic events was similar between the two arms (HR 0.99; 95% CI [0.78–1.25]). Transition from dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of ticagrelor plus aspirin to ticagrelor-based monotherapy in high-risk patients at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a lower risk of bleeding events without an increase in risk of death, MI, or stroke.

Disclosure:UB received institutional research funding and advisory board/personal fees from AstraZeneca. RM received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca. JN has no conflicts of interest to declare.



Published online:

Correspondence Details:Roxana Mehran, The Zena and Michael A Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1 Gustave L Levy Place, Box 1030, New York, NY 10029-6574. E:

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Seminal clinical trials conducted in the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent era established the superiority of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) as compared with aspirin monotherapy or anticoagulation with respect to the prevention of thrombotic events.1,2 Other studies found that the benefits of DAPT are durable for at least 1 year and extend to patients with acute coronary syndromes.3–5 However, iterative advances in stent design lowered the thrombotic potential of these devices, thereby altering the risk–benefit calculus for prolonged durations of DAPT.6,7 Moreover, numerous studies have shown that bleeding confers a strong and independent risk for mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thus rendering the prevention of bleeding an important clinical priority.8–10

While several studies have shown that short DAPT durations followed by aspirin monotherapy may be safe and feasible in relatively low-risk patients, extension to higher-risk patient and lesion subsets remains less certain.11,12 An alternative approach that might preserve the benefits of strong P2Y12 inhibition while lowering bleeding involves the cessation of aspirin and continuation of a potent P2Y12 inhibitor after an initial course of DAPT.

Rationale of the Trial

The What is the Optimal antiplatElet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with oral anticoagulation and coronary StenTing (WOEST) trial was the first study to examine the effect of an aspirin-free strategy in the context of PCI by comparing warfarin, clopidogrel, and aspirin with warfarin and clopidogrel over a period of 1 year among patients with AF.13 In this study, the withdrawal of aspirin led to a significant reduction in bleeding with no change in thrombotic events.13

Other studies using alternative direct oral anticoagulants recapitulated these observations, and an initial aspirin-free approach is considered optimal in most patients receiving oral anticoagulation and clopidogrel after PCI.13–16

In contrast, the GLOBAL LEADERS trial was the first examination of an aspirin-free strategy in a large, all-comer PCI population not receiving an oral anticoagulant.17 In this trial, ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months was compared with conventional DAPT followed by aspirin alone. The experimental approach did not significantly reduce the risk for death or Q-wave MI over a period of 2 years, a null result that has been attributed to the inclusion of relatively low-risk patients, variable levels of drug adherence, or the lack of central adjudication.17

Clinical and Angiographic Characteristics that Satisfy the High-risk Criteria

Article image

Definition of Primary Endpoint Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Bleeding Criteria

Article image

Hence, the benefits, or harms, of ticagrelor monotherapy in patients at higher risk for either ischemic or bleeding complications remain unclear. In addition, it is plausible that higher-risk patients will derive a larger benefit from a therapeutic intervention aimed at lowering bleeding.

Accordingly, we designed the Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial to test the hypothesis that ticagrelor monotherapy would yield a significant reduction in clinically relevant bleeding while not increasing ischemic risk, as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin among high-risk patients undergoing PCI who had already completed a 3-month course of DAPT.

Study Design

TWILIGHT (NCT02270242) is a randomized and double-blind trial conducted in 187 medical centers across 11 countries.18,19 The patients selected for participation underwent successful implantation of at least one drug-eluting stent, followed by discharge on a regimen of ticagrelor plus aspirin, as intended by the treating physician. Selected patients were high risk, as defined by at least one clinical and one angiographic feature (Table 1). Patients with ST-segment elevation MI, cardiogenic shock, ongoing long-term treatment with oral anticoagulants, or contraindication to antiplatelet therapy were excluded.

All enrolled patients received DAPT, consisting of ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) and enteric-coated aspirin (81–100 mg daily) for 3 months after index PCI. Patients who showed adherence and did not have a major bleeding or ischemic event (stroke, MI, or coronary revascularization) at 3 months were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either aspirin or placebo in addition to continuation of open label ticagrelor for an additional 12 months.

A secure web-based system was used to perform the randomization. Sequences were randomly generated by blocks of four, six, and eight patients, and were stratified according to treatment site. Randomized patients were followed up by phone at 1 month and in person at 6 and 12 months after randomization. Adherence to medications was evaluated using manual pill counts.

The primary outcome of interest was bleeding events, defined as type ≥2 according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (Table 2).20 The secondary outcomes were mainly ischemic events, including death from any cause, non-fatal MI or stroke, and thrombosis. Both primary and secondary outcomes were observed between randomization and the 1-year follow-up period using a time-to-event analysis. All clinical events were externally adjudicated by an independent committee whose members were blinded to therapy assignment.

The study was powered to detect a difference in the primary endpoint of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, based on a superiority assumption. A sample size of 8,200 patients was required to achieve 80% power in the detection of a 28% lower incidence of bleeding in the experimental group, assuming an incidence of 4.5% at 1 year in the control group (type I error rate of 0.05). Similarly, for the secondary endpoints, 8,200 patients were required to achieve a power of 80% in ruling out an absolute difference in risk of 1.6 percentage points (one-sided type I error rate of 0.025).

The primary endpoint of bleeding was analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach. In contrast, the analysis of ischemic events was completed by only including randomized patients who completed the treatment originally allocated (per-protocol approach).


Out of 9,006 patients selected for participation, 7,119 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion at 3 months to either ticagrelor plus placebo or ticagrelor plus aspirin with an intention-to-treat. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were very similar between the two arms: the mean age was 65 years, women represented 24% of participants, and the prevalence of diabetes and chronic kidney disease was approximately 40% and 17%, respectively. Multivessel coronary artery disease was prevalent in 63.9% of patients in the experimental arm, and 61.6% of those in the control arm.

The primary endpoint, bleeding events (BARC type 2, 3, or 5), occurred in 7.1% of patients who received ticagrelor plus aspirin, and 4.0% of those who received ticagrelor plus placebo (HR 0.56; 95% CI [0.45–0.68]; p<0.001; Figure 1A). Secondary endpoints, mainly ischemic events (including all-cause death, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke), occurred similarly in the two arms: 3.9% in those who received ticagrelor plus placebo, and 3.9% in those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin (HR 0.99; 95% CI [0.78–1.25]; Figure 1B). These findings were consistent across all subgroups analyzed (age, sex, race/ethnicity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, BMI, indication for PCI, total stent length, prior MI, and multivessel disease).


Transition to ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in high-risk patients who received a drug-eluting stent was associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of bleeding events (44% lower risk of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding). The benefits of aspirin withdrawal at 3 months extended to severe bleeding events (BARC type 3 or 5) and across different bleeding scales (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI], Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries [GUSTO], and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH]).21–23

In contrast, ischemic events occurred similarly in both arms, indicating that dual therapy does not confer additional protection from death, MI, and stroke. In other words, ticagrelor monotherapy led to a lower bleeding events rate without compromising the protection from ischemic events, as compared with a dual therapy regimen. These findings were consistent with some previously published studies, but conflicted with others. The differences are mainly due to variations in clinical trial design and execution (Table 3).

Two randomized clinical trials, ShorT and OPtimal Duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy-2 (STOPDAPT-2) and Smart Angioplasty Research Team: Comparison Between P2Y12 Antagonist Monotherapy vs Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Implantation of Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents (SMART-CHOICE), showed a significant bleeding risk reduction without a change in ischemic events when switched to clopidogrel monotherapy after 1–3 months of DAPT.24,25 In contrast, GLOBAL LEADERS showed that 1 month of DAPT followed by 23 months of ticagrelor monotherapy did not reduce the risk of bleeding as compared to dual therapy.17

Kaplan–Meier Curves for the Primary and Secondary Outcomes

Article image

The contradictory results between TWILIGHT and GLOBAL LEADERS can be explained by differences in study design: the first is double-blind, a high-risk population who received monotherapy for 12 months; whereas the second trial is open-label, an all-comers population who received therapy for 23 months. In addition, the control arm in GLOBAL LEADERS was maintained on aspirin, whereas in TWILIGHT it was maintained on ticagrelor plus aspirin. Finally, bleeding events were self-reported in GLOBAL LEADERS, whereas adjudication committees evaluated events in TWILIGHT.

Comparison Between TWILIGHT and Other Randomized Trials

Article image


Article image

All these differences could explain the attenuated beneficial effect of aspirin withdrawal in GLOBAL LEADERS as compared with TWILIGHT. Indeed, in patients maintained on ticagrelor monotherapy, the relative incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was 14% lower in GLOBAL LEADERS compared with 51% in TWILIGHT.17

The main strength of the TWILIGHT trial is mainly in including high-risk patients who are highly prone to primary or secondary endpoints at 12 months follow-up. Consequently, shortening exposure to dual antiplatelet agents in this vulnerable population has a great impact on bleeding reduction without compromising the ischemic protection. Nevertheless, the TWILIGHT results are only applicable to patients satisfying pre-specified clinical and angiographic features (Table 1), and cannot be generalized to patients with ST-segment elevation MI or non-acute coronary syndrome on presentation.

Moreover, 36% of all patients included in the study were either asymptomatic or had stable angina. A dual antiplatelet regimen consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel is usually recommended by all guidelines for such patients.11,26 Hence, it is expected that the use of ticagrelor rather than clopidogrel in non-acute coronary syndrome patients results in a higher incidence of bleeding events without a significant change in ischemic events.

Consequently, one might assume that the beneficial effect of ticagrelor monotherapy should not be extended to all PCI patients, and especially to those with stable disease. However, all patients enrolled in TWILIGHT, including those with stable disease, had at least one clinical and one angiographic characteristic that placed them at high risk for complications following PCI, and hence they were prescribed a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor rather than clopidogrel).

The present study had several limitations. First, the lack of power to detect differences in the risk of stent thrombosis and stroke (considered as rare events). Second, only high-risk patients were included; hence, the results may not be applicable to low-to-intermediate-risk patients. Furthermore, the results are also not applicable to patients who satisfied the high-risk criteria but did not tolerate DAPT in the first 3 months. Third, more ischemic cerebrovascular events were recorded in patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; however, because of the low number of events (24), no conclusion can be made. Fourth, the primary endpoint included bleeding events of different severity, which might affect the risk–benefit calculation for ticagrelor monotherapy. Fifth, a lower than expected incidence of the composite endpoint for the secondary outcomes may have biased the study results toward the null. Sixth, patients with ST-segment elevation MI on presentation were excluded, which could affect the generalizability of the results to this high-risk population.


Transition from dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of ticagrelor plus aspirin to ticagrelor-based monotherapy in high-risk patients at 3 months after PCI resulted in a lower bleeding events rate without an increase in death, MI, or stroke (Figure 2). The ongoing challenge will be in integrating the findings of TWILIGHT with the abundant evidence from previous studies supporting long-term DAPT in patients with low bleeding but high ischemic risk. Nonetheless, the decision to switch from DAPT to ticagrelor monotherapy remains at the discretion of each physician’s clinical judgment and the patient’s specific baseline characteristics.


  1. Bertrand ME, Legrand V, Boland J, et al. Randomized multicenter comparison of conventional anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in unplanned and elective coronary stenting. The full anticoagulation versus aspirin and ticlopidine (FANTASTIC) study. Circulation 1998;98:1597–603.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Schomig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Eng J Med 1996;334:1084–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet 2001;358:527–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. White HD. Newer antiplatelet agents in acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 1999;138:S570–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann JT 3rd, et al. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:2411–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting stents: is the paradigm shifting? J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1915–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Massaro JM, et al. Stent thrombosis in drug-eluting or bare-metal stents in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015;8:1552–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Baber U, Mehran R, Giustino G, et al. Coronary thrombosis and major bleeding after PCI with drug-eluting stents: risk scores from PARIS. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2224–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Généreux P, Giustino G, Witzenbichler B, et al. Incidence, predictors, and impact of post-discharge bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1036–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Valle JA, Shetterly S, Maddox TM, et al. Postdischarge bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent mortality and myocardial infarction: insights from the HMO Research Network-Stent Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003519.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:1082–115.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Bhatt DL, Fox KA, Hacke W, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1706–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Dewilde WJ, Oirbans T, Verheugt FW, et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2013;381:1107–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. D’Ascenzo F, Taha S, Moretti C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and adjusted observational results of use of clopidogrel, aspirin, and oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2015;115:1185–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C, et al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2423–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Cannon CP, Bhatt DL, Oldgren J, et al. Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran after PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1513–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Jüni P, et al. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet 2018;392:940–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Baber U, Dangas G, Cohen DJ, et al. Ticagrelor with aspirin or alone in high-risk patients after coronary intervention: rationale and design of the TWILIGHT study. Am Heart J 2016;182:125–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019;381:2032–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011;123:2736-2747.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Rao AK, Pratt C, Berke A, et al. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial – phase I: hemorrhagic manifestations and changes in plasma fibrinogen and the fibrinolytic system in patients treated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and streptokinase. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;11:1–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. GUSTO investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;329:673–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Rodeghiero F, Tosetto A, Abshire T, et al. ISTH/SSC bleeding assessment tool: a standardized questionnaire and a proposal for a new bleeding score for inherited bleeding disorders. J Thromb Haemost 2010;8:2063–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Watanabe H, Domei T, Morimoto T, et al. Effect of 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by clopidogrel vs 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients receiving PCI: the STOPDAPT-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:2414–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Hahn JY, Song YB, Oh JH, et al. Effect of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs dual antiplatelet therapy on cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SMART-CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:2428–37.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2019;41:407–77.
    Crossref | PubMed