A Commentary notes that as a pragmatic trial, it had a complex design, in that patients in the control group could receive aspirin in combination with either ticagrelor (if they had acute coronary syndrome) or clopidogrel (if they had stable coronary artery disease) resulting in different antiplatelet regimens and different durations of dual antiplatelet therapy, making formal assessments of non-inferiority challenging, especially because the trial was open label. Also the short follow-up of 2 years limited the ability to establish whether the numerical trends in the trial would become significant, and even though the number of patients was large, the number of events was not, further restricting the ability to assess subgroups, such as patients with acute coronary syndromes. It suggests that the safest interpretation of this trial is that ‘an innovative strategy of antiplatelet therapy was tested but was not superior to standard dual antiplatelet therapy. Thus, practice should not be changed on the basis of the trial's results. The current standards of care for antiplatelet therapy should continue for the time being.’ Several trials are underway to establish whether the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after elective stenting can be shortened.