Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE W): a randomised controlled trial

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation are both common and can occur in the same patient. Combination therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulation increases risk of bleeding. Where the two conditions coexist, careful consideration is needed to determine the optimal antithrombotic treatment to reduce the risks of future ischaemic events associated with both conditions. Choices can be made in intraprocedural anticoagulation, type and dosing of oral anticoagulant, duration of combination therapy, and selection of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor including genetic testing. This review article provides an overview of the available evidence to support clinicians in finding the delicate balance between antithrombotic efficacy and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

Double Antithrombotic versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome

In atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy with either vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist is used to prevent thromboembolic complications. In patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and were treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y ₁₂ inhibitor reduces major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and stent thrombosis. Consequently, in patients with AF who presented with ACS and were treated by PCI, the combination of OAC and DAPT, the so-called triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) is needed to improve the outcome of the patients. However, the use of TAT increases the risk of bleeding. Several randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis evaluated the use of TAT and double antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in this population, and DAT is defined as patients who receive combination of one antiplatelet and OAC. In general, the studies demonstrated a reduction in bleeding event in patients who received DAT as compared with TAT, with similar incidence of thromboembolic complications and MACE. To date, there is no established consensus or guideline for the most appropriate combination of antithrombotic agents in patients with AF and ACS who undergo PCI. Tailoring the treatment for each individual is likely the best approach to determine the balance of bleeding risk and ischemic events before starting antithrombotic therapy. Future trials with adequate sample size are needed to find the most appropriate combination of antiplatelet and OAC in patients with AF who presented with ACS and treated by PCI.

The Combination of Oral Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapies: Stay One Step Ahead

Antithrombotic drugs, which include antiplatelets and anticoagulants, are effective in prevention and treatment of many cardiovascular disorders such as acute coronary syndromes, stroke, and venous thromboembolism and are among the drugs most commonly prescribed worldwide. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants, which are safer alternatives to vitamin K antagonists and do not require laboratory monitoring, has revolutionized the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. The combination of oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy is required in many conditions of great clinical impact such as the coexistence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, with indication to percutaneous coronary intervention. However, strategies that combine anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies lead to a significant increase in bleeding rates and it is crucial to find the right combination in the single patient in order to optimize the ischemic and bleeding risk. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence and controversies regarding the optimal combination of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy through the consideration of past dogmas and new perspectives from recent clinical trials and to propose a tailored therapeutic approach, according to specific clinical scenarios and individual patient characteristics. In particular, we separately explored the clinical settings of stable and acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous revascularization in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with coronary artery disease: shifting paradigm to a "less is more" concept regimen

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces the risk of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while oral anticoagulants are superior to antiplatelet therapy for preventing thromboembolic events, including ischemic stroke, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Reportedly, the AF population accounts for approximately 5 to 10% of patients undergoing PCI. From a theoretical viewpoint, combination therapy of DAPT and oral anticoagulation was previously recommended in patients with AF undergoing PCI. However, long-term triple therapy carries the risk of major bleeding. Recent clinical trials (WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, and ENTRUST AF-PCI trials) demonstrated the advantage of dual therapy with an oral anticoagulant (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant) plus an antiplatelet agent, which decreased the rate of major bleeding in the acute phase in AF patients who underwent PCI. These results affected guidelines, which now recommend that the duration of triple therapy should be limited, and dual therapy should be considered an alternative regimen when considering the bleeding risk. The current guidelines recommend monotherapy with an oral anticoagulant after 12 months of combination therapy, or in patients with AF and stable coronary artery diseases not requiring intervention. However, this approach has yet to be validated by randomized, controlled trials. Recently, the AFIRE trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban monotherapy was noninferior to dual therapy in terms of efficacy and superior in terms of safety in this population. Accumulating evidence demonstrates that there has been a paradigm shift in antithrombotic therapy to a "less is more" regimen. This article reviews current evidence and focuses on the optimal approach to antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF undergoing PCI in acute and chronic/stable phases.

Commentary: Temporarily omitting oral anticoagulants early after stenting for acute coronary syndromes patients with atrial fibrillation

The joint occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) entails a three-dimensional - cardioembolic, coronary and hemorrhagic - risk. Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), i.e., oral anticoagulation (OAC) on top of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), has been the default strategy for such patients until recently. Due to the high hemorrhagic burden of TAT, several dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) regimens, i.e., OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent, have been proposed in randomized trials with the aim of improving safety without hampering efficacy. Current guidelines and consensus documents still leave here, however, OAC as an undisputed cornerstone. Such documents do not sufficiently distinguish between the ischemic risk due to ACS treated with stenting and the one due to AF, which may dissociate in some patients and definitely have a different time course. The possibility of postponing the introduction of OAC in such conditions, rather taking advantage of the use of newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor, is not currently sufficiently contemplated in contemporary documents. We here question the claimed lack of alternatives to the "anticoagulant always and immediately" approach in most such patients, propose some risk simulations, claim that skipping anticoagulation in the presence of modern DAPT for one month after an ACS in the context of a high bleeding risk and a high coronary risk is a valuable, currently unlisted option, and raise the need of a proper trial on this controversial issue.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention; insights from a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome with concomitant atrial fibrillation is largely under investigation.

METHOD

PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized trials or subgroup analyses of randomized trials investigating different antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared dual antithrombotic therapy versus triple antithrombotic therapy. Dual antithrombotic therapy was defined as vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant plus P2Y12 inhibitor. Triple antithrombotic therapy was defined as vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant plus dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus P2Y12 inhibitor). The primary safety outcome was trial outcome was trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Our search identified 5 eligible subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials that enrolled a total of 4733 patients. Dual antithrombotic therapy significantly decreased the bleeding risk when compared with triple antithrombotic therapy (hazard ratio: 0.61; 95% confidential interval [0.51-0.71], P < 0.001, I = 31%). However, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular event between dual antithrombotic therapy versus triple antithrombotic therapy (hazard ratio: 1.08; 95% confidential interval: 0.89-1.31, P = 0.44, I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, dual antithrombotic therapy was associated with lower bleeding risk compared with triple antithrombotic therapy while conferring similar major adverse cardiovascular event risk. Our results should be interpreted cautiously because we did not analyze the risk of stent thrombosis.

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) Versus Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) for Atrial Fibrillation with Elective or Urgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis with a Particular Focus on Combination Type

BACKGROUND

Our study aims to perform a meta-analysis of benefits and risks associated with the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a particular focus on the combination type: dual vs. dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT: NOAC + single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) vs. DAT: VKA + SAPT), dual vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT: NOAC + SAPT vs. TAT: VKA + dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)) or triple vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT: NOAC+DAPT vs. TAT: VKA+DAPT).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic regimens. Four randomized studies (n = 10.969; PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, and ENTRUST-AF PCI) were included. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) and clinically relevant bleeding requiring medical intervention (CRNM). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and stent thrombosis (ST).

RESULTS

Combination strategies with NOACs were associated with reduced risk of major bleeding events across different combination strategies as compared to VKA, with the most significant risk reduction when DAT was compared with TAT, namely DAT with NOAC + SAPT was associated with a 37% relative risk reduction (RRR) of major bleeding events as compared to TAT with VKA + DAPT (RR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.80). The reduction of major bleeding risks is a class effect of NOACs. Combination strategies of NOACs vs. VKAs resulted in a comparable risk of MACE, MI, stroke, ST, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Antithrombotic combinations of NOACs (as DAT or TAT) are safer than VKAs with respect to bleeding risk and result in a satisfactory efficacy with no increase of ischemic or thrombotic events in patients undergoing PCI.

Temporal Trends and Patient Characteristics Associated With Drug Utilisation After First-Ever Stroke: Insights From Chronic Disease Registry Data in Singapore

Introduction: Data on drug utilisation among stroke patients of Asian ethnicities are lacking. The objectives of the study were to examine the temporal trends and patient characteristics associated with prescription of thrombolytic, antithrombotic and statin medications among patients with first-ever stroke. Materials and Methods: First-ever ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke patients admitted to 2 Singapore tertiary hospitals between 2010‒2014 were included. Data were extracted from the National Healthcare Group Chronic Disease Management System. Association between drug utilisation and admission year, as well as characteristics associated with drug use, were explored using multivariable logistic regression. Results: There was an increasing trend in the combined use of all 3 guideline medications in ischaemic stroke patients (P<0.001) ―specifically thrombolytic agents (P <0.001), oral antithrombotics (P = 0.002) and statins (P = 0.003) at discharge. Among antithrombotics, the use of clopidogrel (P <0.001) and aspirinclopidogrel (P <0.001) had increased, whereas prescription of dipyridamole (P <0.001) and aspirin-dipyridamole (P <0.001) had declined. For statins, the increase in atorvastatin prescription (P <0.001) was accompanied by decreasing use of simvastatin (P <0.001). Age, ethnicity and certain comorbidities (hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease) were associated with the combined use of all 3 guideline medications (P <0.05). In haemorrhagic stroke, prescription of statins at discharge were comparatively lower. Conclusion: This study reveals changes in prescription behaviour over time in a multiethnic Asian population with first-ever stroke. Patient characteristics including younger age, Malay ethnicity and certain comorbidities (i.e. hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation) were associated with the combined use of all 3 guideline medications among ischaemic stroke patients. Key words: Antithrombotics, Asian, Statins, Thrombolytic agents

Aspirin-omitted dual antithrombotic therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of a meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the effects of aspirin-omitted dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) on myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using PubMed to search for randomized clinical trials comparing DAT with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) in this setting. Three trials involving 8845 patients were included (4802 and 4043 patients treated with DAT and TAT, respectively). There were no significant differences in all-cause death and stroke between the aspirin-omitted DAT group and TAT group. Otherwise, the incidence of myocardial infarction was significantly higher with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT [odds ratio (OR): 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.63; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%]. Similarly, the incidence of stent thrombosis increased in patients treated with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02-2.53; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%). The occurrence of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, was significantly lower with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78; P = 0.02; I2 = 76%). Similar results were found according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding scales.

CONCLUSION

Aspirin-omitted DAT reduces the occurrence of bleeding episodes, with a higher rate of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis in NVAF patients presenting with ACS or undergoing PCI.

Triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention/stenting

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at high risk of stroke, recurrent coronary ischemic events, and cardiovascular mortality. The composition of antithrombotic therapy including an oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet drug(s) should be tailored according to the individual patient's risk profile, to reduce the bleeding risk and maintain antithrombotic effect. There is no single antithrombotic treatment regimen that would fit to all patients with AF and ACS. However, available data promote the use of full-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (dabigatran 150 mg twice daily or apixaban 5 mg twice daily) or rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily in patients with AF and ACS or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). For many patients, a DOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor early after ACS and/or PCI would be optimal, whereas a longer course of triple therapy should be used in patients at high thrombotic risk.

Four-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with atherosclerosis and atrial fibrillation

Background

There is a paucity of contemporary data assessing the implications of atrial fibrillation (AF) on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with or at high‐risk for atherosclerotic disease managed in routine practice.

Hypothesis

We sought to evaluate the 4‐year incidence of MACE in patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease in the presence of AF.

Methods

Using US MarketScan data, we identified AF patients ≥45 years old with billing codes indicating established coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral artery disease or the presence of ≥3 risk factors for atherosclerotic disease from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 with a minimum of 4‐years of available follow‐up. We calculated the 4‐year incidence of MACE (cardiovascular death or hospitalization with a primary billing code for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke). Patients were further stratified by CHA₂DS₂‐VASc score and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use at baseline.

Results

We identified 625,951 patients with 4‐years of follow‐up, of which 77,752 (12.4%) had comorbid AF. The median (25%, 75% range) CHA₂DS₂‐VASc score was 4 (3, 5) and 64% of patients received an OAC at baseline. The incidence of MACE increased as CHA₂DS₂‐VASc scores increased (P‐interaction<.0001 for all). AF patients receiving an OAC were less likely to experience MACE (8.9% vs 11.6%, P < .0001) including ischemic stroke (5.4% vs 6.7%, P < .0001).

Conclusion

Comorbid AF carries a substantial risk of MACE in patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease. MACE risk increases with higher CHA₂DS₂‐VASc scores and is more likely in patients without OAC.

Meta-analysis of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), antithrombotic therapy including oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets are indicated. The optimal combination is not known. We investigated the efficacy and safety of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with AF undergoing PCI. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through September 2019 for randomized trials investigating the efficacy and safety of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with AF who underwent PCI and/or acute coronary syndrome. Nine antithrombotic strategies were compared including combinations of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, combinations of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban) with DAPT or P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). The primary safety outcome was trial defined primary bleeding outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events. Our search identified 5 eligible trials that enrolled a total of 11,532 patients and compared 9 treatment strategies. VKA + DAPT significantly increased bleeding when compared with most combinations (for example, vs VKA + P2Y₁₂ inhibitor: odds ratio 2.11; 95% confidence interval [1.76 to 2.52], p <0.001). Of all the combinations, apixaban + P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor showed the lowest bleeding risk (for example, vs VKA + P2Y₁₂ inhibitor: odds ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval [0.51 to 0.78], p <0.001) and was ranked the best treatment. There were no significant differences in ischemic outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events between various antithrombotic regimens. In conclusion, in patients with AF undergoing PCI, apixaban + P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were associated with lowest bleeding compared with other regimens including other DOACs + P2Y₁₂ inhibitors with no increase in ischemic outcomes.

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation

IMPORTANCE

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019.

EXPOSURE

Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications.

RESULTS

A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Increases With Combinations of Antithrombotic Agents and Patient Age

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The safety of different antithrombotic strategies for patients with 1 or more indication for antithrombotic drugs has not been determined. We investigated the risk and time frame for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients prescribed different antithrombotic regimens. We proposed that risk would increase over time and with combination regimens, especially among elderly patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of nationwide claims data from privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees who received anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents from October 1, 2010, through May 31, 2017. Patients were stratified by their prescriptions (anticoagulant alone, antiplatelet alone, or a combination) and by their primary diagnosis (atrial fibrillation, ischemic heart disease, or venous thromboembolism). The 1-year GIB risk was estimated using parametric time-to-event survival models and expressed as annualized risk and number needed to harm (NNH).

RESULTS

Our final analysis included 311,211 patients (mean ages, 67 years for monotherapy and 69.8 years for combination antithrombotic therapy). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with bleeding after anticoagulant or antiplatelet monotherapy (∼3.5%/year). Combination antithrombotic therapy increased GIB risk compared with anticoagulant (NNH, 29) or antiplatelet (NNH, 31) monotherapy, regardless of the patients' diagnosis or time point analyzed. Advancing age was associated with increasing 1-year probability of GIB. Patients prescribed combination therapy were at the greatest risk for GIB, especially after the age of 75 years (GIB occurred in 10%-17.5% of patients/y).

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of nationwide insurance and Medicare claims data, we found GIB to occur in a higher proportion of patients prescribed combinations of anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents compared with monotherapy. Among all drug exposure categories and cardiovascular conditions, the risk of GIB increased with age, especially among patients older than 75 years.

Accumulation of Deficits as a Key Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality: A Pooled Analysis of 154 000 Individuals

Background

Frailty is associated with higher mortality in individuals at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We hypothesize that frailty is a more important prognostic factor than CVD risk factors and aim to determine the prognostic value of a cumulative deficit frailty index in patients with or at high risk for CVD.

Methods and Results

We conducted an individual‐level pooled analysis of participants with or at risk for CVD, recruited in 14 multicenter clinical trials. The cumulative deficit index was calculated as the proportion of 26 deficits exhibited. Individuals were categorized as nonfrail, prefrail, or frail if they had indexes of ≤0.1, >0.1 to 0.21, or >0.21, respectively. CVD risk was assessed using the Framingham score. Outcomes included CVD event (new or recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) and mortality. We studied 154 696 patients (mean age, 70.8 years; 63% men) with median follow‐up of 3.2 years. There were 17 535 CVD events and 15 067 deaths. The frail group (n=13 872) had higher risk of a CVD event (incidence rate ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.85–2.08), all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.79–2.03), and CVD mortality (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.77–2.05) than the nonfrail group (n=101 343). Associations remained unchanged after adjusting for CVD risk factors. The index statistically outperformed the Framingham score in its ability to discriminate CVD events (C‐statistic, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.60–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% CI, 0.57–0.58], respectively; P<0.001).

Conclusions

In individuals with or at high risk of developing CVD, the cumulative deficit index is associated with increased CVD events and mortality, independent of CVD risk factors, and adds incremental prognostic value.

Comparative efficacy and safety of warfarin care bundles and novel oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Warfarin care bundles (e.g. genotype-guided warfarin dosing, patient’s self-testing [PST] or patient’s self-management [PSM] and left atrial appendage closure) are based on the concept of combining several interventions to improve anticoagulation care. NOACs are also introduced for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (SPAF). However, these interventions have not been compared in head-to-head trials yet. We did a network meta-analysis based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anticoagulant interventions for SPAF. Studies comparing these interventions in adults, whether administered alone or as care bundles were included in the analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was stroke and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Thirty-seven studies, involving 100,142 patients were assessed. Compared to usual care, PSM significantly reduced the risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.24, 95% CI 0.08–0.68). For major bleeding, edoxaban 60 mg (0.80, 0.71–0.90), edoxaban 30 mg (0.48, 0.42–0.56), and dabigatran 110 mg (0.81, 0.71–0.94) significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with usual warfarin care. Cluster rank plot incorporating stroke and major bleeding outcomes indicates that some warfarin care bundles perform as well as NOACs. Both interventions are therefore viable options to be considered for SPAF. Additional studies including head-to-head trials and cost-effectiveness evaluation are still warranted.

Clinical benefits and risks of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with comorbidities - A report from the CHART-2 Study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of antithrombotic therapy (ATT) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are occasionally offset by major bleeding complications. However, the clinical benefits and risks of ATT in AF patients, with special references to comorbidities, such as heart failure (HF), coronary artery disease (CAD), and the patterns of AF, remain to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

A total of 3221 consecutive AF patients from our Chronic Heart Failure Analysis and Registry in the Tohoku District-2 (CHART-2) Study (N = 10,219) were divided into 4 groups based on ATT at enrollment; no-ATT, anticoagulant alone, antiplatelet alone, and both of them (AC&AP). Then, efficacy and safety outcomes including thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and mortality were evaluated among the 4 groups.

RESULTS

Anticoagulant monotherapy was associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke in patients with but not in those without HF, CAD, or non-paroxysmal AF. Although there was no significant difference in major bleeding among the 4 groups, a composite of thromboembolism and major bleeding occurred more frequently in the AC&AP group, even in combination with anticoagulants and single antiplatelet therapy, indicating that the combination therapy is more harmful than anticoagulant monotherapy for AF patients, especially for those with HF or CAD. Lastly, no-ATT group was associated with worse prognosis compared with other 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that ATT is beneficial for AF patients particularly for those with HF, CAD, or non-paroxysmal AF and that among ATT, anticoagulant monotherapy may be most profitable for both clinical benefits and risks for AF patients.

Current aspects of TIA management

Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) if untreated carries a high risk of early stroke and is associated with poorer long-term survival [1]. There is emerging evidence of a reduction in stroke risk following TIA. Time critical investigations and management, as well as service organisation remain key to achieving good outcomes. Patients are diagnosed with TIA if they have transient, sudden-onset focal neurological symptoms which usually completely and rapidly resolve by presentation. The tissue based definition of TIA guides the fact that patients with residual symptoms should be considered as potentially having a stroke, with urgent evaluation regarding eligibility for thrombolysis and/or endovascular clot retrieval (ECR). Essential investigations for all patients with TIA should include early brain imaging, ECG, and carotid imaging in patients with anterior circulation symptoms. After brain imaging, exclusion of high risk indicators and immediate administration of an antiplatelet agent, subsequent attention to other mechanistic factors can be managed safely as part of a structured clinical pathway supervised by stroke specialists. This is in line with the recently revised Stroke Foundation Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management (2017).

Determinants of Antithrombotic Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation in Octogenarians: Results of the OCTOFA Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Atrial fibrillation, the most frequent form of arrhythmia, affects 5-15% individuals aged > 80 years. Stroke is a major risk for atrial fibrillation patients. The benefits of anticoagulant therapy clearly outweigh the risk of hemorrhage, even in the elderly. Despite the efficacy of warfarin, many eligible patients receive no prophylactic antithrombotic therapy. New generation oral anticoagulants compare favorably with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention of thromboembolic events and hemorrhage. These new agents are likely to influence the prescribing habits of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study to investigate both the frequency and the determining factors of anticoagulant prescriptions in AF patients aged ≥ 80 years and followed up by private-practice cardiologists in France.

METHODS

The OCTOFA (Atrial Fibrillation in Octogenarians) Study assessed the anticoagulant prescribing habits of cardiologists in France. The volunteer cardiologists recruited all consecutive patients fulilling the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Between June 2013 and September 2016, 89 cardiologists recruited 738 eligible patients: age ≥ 80 years, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, no other compelling indication for anticoagulation therapy, no recent acute coronary syndrome or stroke. Most (90.7%) patients were on oral anticoagulant therapy: vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, low molecular weight heparin (1.4%), aspirin (5.7%), and no antithrombotic treatment (2.2%). Patients on vitamin K antagonists were older (p < 0.001), had lower renal function (p = 0.033), and had a more frequent history of myocardial infarction (p < 0.001), heart failure (p = 0.001), peripheral artery disease (p = 0.033), major hemorrhage (p = 0.025), and falls (p = 0.045). Four determining factors of anticoagulant prescriptions were statistically significant: high CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (p < 0.001), high HAS-BLED score (p < 0.001), age > 90 years (p = 0.001), and moderate/severe cognitive impairment (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Most private-practice cardiologists prescribe anticoagulant treatment according to current guidelines in elderly atrial fibrillation patients. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants represent a significant proportion of prescriptions.

Reinitiation of Anticoagulation After Surgical Evacuation of Subdural Hematomas

BACKGROUND

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is an increasingly common condition due to the growing use of anticoagulation. Currently, there remains a lack of evidence to guide the optimal timing of anticoagulant reinitiation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation after cSDH evacuation. We aimed to better understand the perceived risks of hemorrhagic and embolic complications along with current practice patterns on restarting anticoagulation after surgical evacuation of cSDH.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of Canadian neurosurgeons and stroke neurologists using a novel self-administered questionnaire using clinical cases that included questions on clinical experience, practice setting, practice patterns, and perceptions on stroke/bleeding risk with anticoagulation reinitiation after cSDH evacuation. The instrument was evaluated for clinical sensibility by 5 neurosurgeons, neurologists, and intensivists.

RESULTS

The response rate after 4 mailings was 40% for neurosurgeons (55/136) and 21% for stroke neurologists (26/122). Almost all participants would restart anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation after cSDH evacuation (91.8% in low-risk patients, 98.6% in high-risk patients). Time to reinitiation of anticoagulation varied considerably, particularly for high-risk patients where 36% of participants would restart anticoagulation within 1 week of surgery, 44% between 1 and 4 weeks after surgery, and 19% after 4 weeks postoperatively. The perceived risk of stroke and SDH reaccumulation varied considerably among participants and was dependent on timing of anticoagulation reinitiation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in current practice patterns and perceived risks of embolic and hemorrhagic complications with anticoagulation reinitiation after cSDH evacuation. These results demonstrate clinical equipoise that warrant further targeted investigation in large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians must balance the risks of bleeding and thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) to prevent bleeding complications is promising, but evidence remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and two clinical trials registers in February 2019. We checked bibliographies of identified studies and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared NOACs and vitamin K antagonists for people with an indication for anticoagulation who underwent PCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects, pairwise analyses using Review Manager 5 and network meta-analyses (NMA) using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons, and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0 to 1 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, but four were ongoing trials, and were not included in this analysis. We included five RCTs, with 8373 participants, in the NMA (two RCTs compared apixaban to a vitamin K antagonist, two RCTs compared rivaroxaban to a vitamin K antagonist, and one RCT compared dabigatran to a vitamin K antagonist). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists in death from cardiovascular causes (not reported in the dabigatran trial), myocardial infarction, stroke, death from any cause, and stent thrombosis. Apixaban (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation compared with vitamin K antagonists. No studies looked at health-related quality of life. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that NOACs may be safer than vitamin K antagonists in terms of bleeding. Both high dose dabigatran (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97), and low dose dabigatran (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70) may reduce major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists. High dose dabigatran (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), low dose dabigatran (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75), apixaban (RR 0,67 , 95% Cl 0.51 to 0.88), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88) probably reduce non-major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists. The results from the NMA were inconclusive between the different NOACs for all primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests no meaningful difference in efficacy outcomes between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and vitamin K antagonists following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. NOACs probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation for adverse events compared with vitamin K antagonists. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that dabigatran may reduce the rates of major and non-major bleeding, and apixaban and rivaroxaban probably reduce the rates of non-major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists. Our network meta-analysis did not show superiority of one NOAC over another for any of the outcomes. Head to head trials, directly comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.

Impact of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at very low thromboembolic risk

Objective

To investigate reasons for and impact of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at very low thromboembolic risk.

Methods

Individuals with CHA2DS2-VASc score 0 (men) or 1 (women) from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) were studied. Baseline characteristics according to OAC use were evaluated by logistic regression analysis. Non-haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality were compared.

Results

From 2224 low CHA2DS2-VASc patients in GARFIELD-AF, 44% received OAC. In an adjusted model, increasing age up to 65 years (OR (95% CI)=1.31 (1.19 to 1.44)) and persistent AF (OR (95% CI)=3.25 (2.44 to 4.34)) or permanent AF (OR (95% CI)=2.29 (1.59 to 3.30)) versus paroxysmal/unclassified AF were associated with OAC use. Concomitant antiplatelet therapy (OR (95% CI)=0.21 (0.17 to 0.27)) was inversely associated. Crude incidence rates per 100 person-years over 2 years in patients on OAC versus not on OAC were 0.32 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.71) vs 0.30 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.63) for non-haemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism, 0.21 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.57) vs 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.46) for major bleeding, 0.26 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.64) vs 0.26 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.57) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.74 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.25) vs 0.99 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.49) for all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

In contrast to guideline recommendations, almost half of real-world patients with AF at a very low thromboembolic risk according to the CHA2DS2-VASc score receive OAC. Persistent or permanent AF and increasing age up to 65 years are associated with OAC use, while concomitant antiplatelet therapy shows an inverse association. Regardless whether patients received OAC therapy, few thromboembolic and bleeding events occur, highlighting the low risk of this population.

[Efficacy and safety of anticoagulant treatment for non-valvular atrial fibrillation in multimorbid patients]

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant treatment in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in a multimorbidity setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cross-sectional study included 104 patients diagnosed with nonvalvular AF and followed in the medical facilities of Yekaterinburg. The subjects were interviewed, anthropometric measurements were made, and the risk of thromboembolic complications was evaluated using the CHA2DS2-VASc score. The Charlson multimorbidity index was calculated, and patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 with a low level of multimorbidity (not more than 5 points) and Group 2 with a high level of multimorbidity (6 points or more). The data are presented as a median and interquartile range (25%; 75%).

RESULTS

The study population included 40 males and 64 females. The median age was 71 (62.5; 80) years. The level of multimorbidity was estimated as 5 (3; 6) points. Group 1 included 64 patients, and Group 2 included 40 patients. Thirty-nine percent of the sample patients had a paroxysmal form of AF, 10% had a persistent form, and 51% had permanent AF. The group of patients with a high level of multimorbidity included more patients with permanent AF and fewer patients with paroxysmal AF as compared with a moderate level of multimorbidity (p&lt;0.01). Anticoagulant treatment was indicated for 92 (88.5%) patients. It was administered to 70.7% of patients; 29.3% did not receive it. Among patients receiving anticoagulants, warfarin was administered to 18.5%, and new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were administered to 81.5%. Complications were reported in 15.2% of anticoagulant treatment cases. Bleeding was reported in 21.7% of cases of warfarin administration and 12.5% of cases of NOAC treatment (p=0.32). The median number of risk factors for bleeding per patient was 5 (4; 5.5). The Charlson index and the total number of risk factors are significantly correlated (R=0.37, p&lt;0.05).

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice in Ekaterinburg, Russia, 7 of 10 patients with AF for whom anticoagulant treatment was indicated actually received it; NOACs are prescribed four times more often than warfarin. With a higher level of multimorbidity, the risk of bleeding under the pressure of anticoagulant treatment increases; thus, NOACs should be preferred over warfarin for treatment of multimorbid patients.

INADEQUACY OF VITAMIN K ANTAGONIST USE IN PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION - OVERVIEW OF EVERYDAY CLINICAL PRACTICE AT THE MERKUR UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL IN ZAGREB, CROATIA

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. It increases the risk of death and thromboembolic events. Vitamin K antagonists reduce these risks. Disadvantages of vitamin K antagonist therapy are narrow therapeutic range and interactions with drugs and food. In a single center prospective study, we enrolled 249 patients with atrial fibrillation over a 12-month period. The aim of our study was to evaluate vitamin K antagonist use regarding the indication and adequate dose. Data on 249 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation were collected before general availability of novel oral anticoagulants. Out of 249 patients, 160 (64.2%) had indication for oral anticoagulant therapy. Only 81 (50.6%) patients had vitamin K antagonist in therapy, 12 (14.8%) of them in adequate dose. We also analyzed 129 patients aged over 75, of which 109 (84.4%) had absolute indication for oral anticoagulant therapy. Only 34 (31.2%) patients aged over 75 had been receiving vitamin K antagonist therapy and 6 (17.6%) had the International Normalized Ratio values within the proposed therapeutic interval. We found a significantly higher rate of anticoagulant therapy introduction in patients under 75 years (p=0.03), but there were no significant differences in the adequacy of anticoagulant therapy (p=0.89) between these two populations. Our results showed clear inadequacies of vitamin K antagonist treatment with a growing need for a wider use of novel oral anticoagulants.

Real-World Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with a History of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Optimal antithrombotic strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been under debate. The actual prescription trend of antithrombotic therapy for these patients remains unclear, especially in chronic phase.Patients with AF having at least a 1-year history of PCI were retrospectively evaluated in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. A total of 266 patients were finally enrolled in this study. The proportion of patients prescribed with oral anticoagulants (OACs) gradually increased over the study period (56%, 67%, 73%, and 74% in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, respectively). According to the type of OACs, the proportion of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), launched in 2011, increased compared with warfarin (DOAC versus warfarin = 3% versus 64% in 2012, 24% versus 49% in 2014, and 32% versus 42% in 2016). Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with OAC was the most popular prescription every year, and its proportion increased over the study period (41%, 44%, 55%, and 59%, respectively). The proportion of OAC monotherapy gradually increased (2%, 3%, 8%, and 9%, respectively), whereas that of triple therapy, i.e., dual antiplatelet therapy with OAC, gradually decreased (14%, 22%, 8%, and 5% in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, respectively).Antithrombotic therapy trends for AF patients with a history of PCI were changing every year. The prescription rate of triple therapy gradually decreased, in contrast, that of OAC monotherapy gradually increased from 2010 to 2016. However, the evidence for OAC monotherapy in these patients remains insufficient.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions: From Coronary Artery Disease to Structural Heart Interventions

Percutaneous cardiovascular interventions have changed dramatically in recent years, and the impetus given by the rapid implementation of novel techniques and devices have been mirrored by a refinement of antithrombotic strategies for secondary prevention, which have been supported by a significant burden of evidence from clinical studies. In the current manuscript, we aim to provide a comprehensive, yet pragmatic, revision of the current available evidence regarding antithrombotic strategies in the domain of percutaneous cardiovascular interventions. We revise the evidence regarding antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention in coronary artery disease and stent implantation, the complex interrelation between antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with concomitant atrial fibrillation, and finally focus on the novel developments in the secondary prevention after structural heart disease intervention. A special focus on treatment individualization is included to emphasize risk and benefits of each therapeutic strategy.

Left atrial appendage occlusion: a critical appraisal updated with recent evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To allow readers to fully appreciate the uncertainties with this novel yet invasive approach to stroke prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous left atrial (LA) appendage occlusion has emerged as potential nonpharmacologic means to prevent stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. Yet the evidence underpinning this new technology is not definitive.

SUMMARY

In this review, we consider the internal and external validity of the regulatory trials, pathophysiologic basis for LA appendage occlusion and clinical tradeoffs of the procedure.

The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation

The current manuscript is the second update of the original Practical Guide, published in 2013 [Heidbuchel et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-651; Heidbuchel et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1467-1507]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have emerged as the preferred choice, particularly in patients newly started on anticoagulation. Both physicians and patients are becoming more accustomed to the use of these drugs in clinical practice. However, many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these agents in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group identified 20 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 20 topics are as follows i.e., (1) Eligibility for NOACs; (2) Practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (3) Ensuring adherence to prescribed oral anticoagulant intake; (4) Switching between anticoagulant regimens; (5) Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of NOACs; (6) NOACs in patients with chronic kidney or advanced liver disease; (7) How to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (8) NOAC plasma level measurement: rare indications, precautions, and potential pitfalls; (9) How to deal with dosing errors; (10) What to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a potential risk of bleeding; (11) Management of bleeding under NOAC therapy; (12) Patients undergoing a planned invasive procedure, surgery or ablation; (13) Patients requiring an urgent surgical intervention; (14) Patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (15) Avoiding confusion with NOAC dosing across indications; (16) Cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (17) AF patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; (18) NOACs in special situations; (19) Anticoagulation in AF patients with a malignancy; and (20) Optimizing dose adjustments of VKA. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in different languages can be found on an EHRA website (www.NOACforAF.eu).

Ischemic and bleeding outcomes of triple therapy in patients on chronic anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Triple therapy (TT) that includes oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended in patients who are on chronic anticoagulation and undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness and safety of TT compared to double therapy (DT), which consists of an oral anticoagulation and one of the P2Y12 inhibitors, have shown increased risk of bleeding; however, none of the individual studies were powered to show a difference in ischemic outcomes. To compare the clinical outcomes of TT and DT, we performed this meta-analysis of RCTs.

Methods

Electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was performed for RCTs comparing TT and DT in patients who were on oral anticoagulation (Vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant) who underwent PCI. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis (ST) and TIMI major and minor bleeding were the major outcomes.

Results

An analysis of 5 trials including 10,592 total patients showed that TT, compared to DT, resulted in non-significant difference in risk of all-cause [odds ratio (OR); 1.14;95% confidence interval (CI):(0.80–1.63); P = 0.46) and cardiovascular mortality [1.43(0.58–3.36); P = 0.44], MI [0.88 (0.64–1.21); P = 0.42], stroke [1.10(0.75–1.62); P = 0.63] and ST [0.82(0.46–1.45); P = 0.49]. TT, compared to DT resulted in higher risk of TIMI major bleeding [1.61(1.09–2.37); P = 0.02], TIMI minor bleeding [1.85(1.23–2.79); P = 0.003] and TIMI major and minor bleeding [1.81 (1.38–2.38); P < 0.0001; I² = 52%].

Conclusion

Compared to DT, the patients receiving TT are at a higher risk of major and minor bleeding with no survival benefit or impact on thrombotic outcomes.

Anticoagulant Utilization and Direct Oral Anticoagulant Prescribing in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for prevention of stroke and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). These agents have been shown to be non-inferior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety. However, their uptake in practice has been variable, and prescribed dosages may be inconsistent with manufacturer recommendations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate patterns of oral anticoagulant use in patients with NVAF, including determination of patient characteristics associated with the prescribing of warfarin or DOACs and whether prescribed dosages of DOACs were concordant with manufacturer recommendations.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review was conducted from April to September 2017 at Abbotsford Regional Hospital, Abbotsford, British Columbia. Patients at least 18 years of age with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of 1 or higher were included. Patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants, those with reversible atrial fibrillation, and those undergoing renal dialysis were excluded. The dosage of DOACs was categorized as too low, too high, or correct in relation to manufacturer recommendations for the Canadian product.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were included. At discharge, 83 (69%) of the patients had a prescription for DOAC, 25 (21%) had a prescription for warfarin, and 12 (10%) had no prescription for an oral anticoagulant. There were no statistically significant differences between the warfarin and DOAC groups with respect to patient characteristics. Among the 56 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was indicated, 7 (13%) received a dose that was too low. Among the 23 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was not indicated, 4 (17%) received a dose that was too high.

CONCLUSIONS

At the study hospital, most patients with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of at least 1 had a discharge prescription for DOAC. Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the warfarin and DOAC groups. For a notable proportion of patients who received a DOAC, the dosage was incorrect. Appropriate prescribing of oral anticoagulants could be further improved by education for prescribers and involvement of hospital pharmacists.

A drug safety evaluation of apixaban for the treatment of atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, and percutaneous coronary intervention

Introduction: The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are changing the landscape for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) and prevention or treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In patients with AF and concomitant acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the treatment regimen of combined NOACs and P2Y₁₂ inhibitors is gaining popularity.Areas covered: We conducted a review of safety evaluation and effectiveness of apixaban for AF and ACS treatment, both alone and in combination with different antiplatelet treatment regimens. The aim was to provide an overview of apixaban including mechanism of action, indications, adverse events and tolerability.Expert opinion: Apixaban is recommended as a safe, well tolerated and effective oral anticoagulant for reducing the risk of ischemic events among AF patients. It is of value in prevention and treatment of VTE and pulmonary embolism. Comparing to VKA, apixaban was superior in preventing stroke or systemic embolism with lower major bleeding events among AF patients. When combined with dual antiplatelet therapy apixaban may cause dose-related increase in bleeding which reduces the benefit of this treatment regimen among ACS patients but without AF. In those with ACS and concomitant AF, the combination of apixaban with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor appears to be safe and effective.

Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke. A Review on the Use of Vitamin K Antagonists and Novel Oral Anticoagulants

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia, ranging from 0.1% in patients <55 years to >9% in octogenarian patients. One important issue is represented by the 5-fold increased ischemic stroke risk in AF patients. Hence, the role of anticoagulation is central. Until a few years ago, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and low molecular weight heparin represented the only option to prevent thromboembolisms, though with risks. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have radically changed the management of AF patients, improving both life expectancy and life quality. This review aims to summarize the most recent literature on the use of VKAs and NOACs in AF, in light of the new findings.

Left atrial appendage closure: A therapy uniquely suited for specific populations of patients with atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinically relevant arrhythmia and confers a fivefold increased risk for stroke. Cardioembolic stroke secondary to AF is a devastating event, but is largely preventable with appropriate oral anticoagulation (OAC). The PROTECT and PREVAIL trials demonstrated that the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device in combination with short-term warfarin therapy is noninferior to long-term warfarin with respect to a composite endpoint of stroke, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism. Importantly, the WATCHMAN confers a significant reduction in life-threatening bleeding compared to OAC. Although direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are superior to warfarin in eligible patients, several important AF populations exist in whom left atrial appendage (LAA) closure may be preferable to DOAC. Populations warranting strong consideration of LAAC include patients with contraindications to DOAC, end-stage renal disease, prior intracranial hemorrhage, recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding, and patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement or left atrial electrical isolation. Device-related thrombosis is an important complication of LAAC, and DOAC may be preferential to warfarin for prevention and treatment of this complication remains unexplored. Prospective clinical trials comparing DOAC to LAAC in these unique populations are either ongoing or needed.

[Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications in atrial fibrillation patients, undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention]

AIM

To evaluate efficacy and safety of reduced dose of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as part of triple antithrombotic therapy in AF patients, undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to identify factors, associated with this strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is a cohort analysis of AF patients with AF, who successfully underwent elective PCI and assigned DOACs as part of triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT).Influence of a reduced DOACs dose as a part of TAT on the frequency of thecomposite efficacy endpoint (acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolic events, cardiovascular death and angina pectoris aggravation/need for unplanned PCI) and safety endpoint (hemorrhagic complications BARC types 2-5) were assessed using the Log-Rank criterion.

RESULTS

The study included 124 pts (69.4% women, mean aged 69±8.2 years). Themedian total score CHA2DS2-VASc was 5, the median of the Charlson index composed 7. Half (52%) of AF patients with high risk of thrombotic events after elective PCI received reduced-DOACs dose. Median follow up period was 11.0 month. 17 adverse thrombotic events were recorded during this period, BARC 2-5 bleedings occurred in 27 patients. Reduced DOACs doses in AF patients undergoing PCI were associated with significant increase of thrombotic events during follow up period compared to patients received full DOACs doses (0.79 vs 0.93, Log-Rank p=0.0292). Patients, who received full and reduced DOAC doses, were comparable in the frequency of BARC 2-5 bleedings (0.78 vs 0.75, Log-Rank p=0.06742).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of a reduced DOACs dose as a part of TAT in patients with AF, who underwent PCI, was associated with significant increase in the incidence of all thrombotic events, compared to patients, who received full dose of anticoagulants. The number of hemorrhagic complications was comparable.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: The Role of Oral Anticoagulation

Oral anticoagulation significantly reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and the decision to initiate therapy is based on assessing the patient's yearly risk of stroke. Although warfarin remains the drug of choice in patients with AF and artificial mechanical valves, the novel anticoagulation agents are becoming the drug of choice for all other patients with AF, because of their efficacy, safety, and ease of use. This article summarizes the current evidence for stroke prevention in AF, including valvular AF, subclinical AF, AF in patients with renal insufficiency, as well as stroke prevention around AF cardioversion.

Thromboembolic events around the time of cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in patients receiving antiplatelet treatment in the ACTIVE trials

Aims

It is unknown whether cardioversion of atrial fibrillation causes thromboembolic events or is a risk marker. To assess causality, we examined the temporal pattern of thromboembolism in patients having cardioversion.

Methods and results

We studied patients randomized to aspirin or aspirin plus clopidogrel in the ACTIVE trials, comparing the thromboembolic rate in the peri-cardioversion period (30 days before until 30 days after) to the rate during follow-up, remote from cardioversion. Among 962 patients, the 30-day thromboembolic rate remote from cardioversion was 0.16%; while it was 0.73% in the peri-cardioversion period [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1–7.9]. The 30-day thromboembolic rates in the periods immediately before and after cardioversion were 0.47% and 0.96%, respectively (HR 2.2, 95% CI 0.7–7.1). Heart failure (HF) hospitalization increased in the peri-cardioversion period (HR 11.5, 95% CI 6.8–19.4). Compared to baseline, the thromboembolic rate in the 30 days following cardioversion was increased both in patients who received oral anticoagulation or a transoesophageal echocardiogram prior to cardioversion (HR 7.9, 95% CI 2.8–22.4) and in those who did not (HR 4.8, 95% CI 1.6–14.9) (interaction P = 0.2); the risk was also increased with successful (HR 4.5; 95% CI 2.0–10.5) and unsuccessful (HR 10.2; 95% CI 2.3–44.9) cardioversion.

Conclusions

Thromboembolic risk increased in the 30 days before cardioversion and persisted until 30 days post-cardioversion, in a pattern similar to HF hospitalization. These data suggest that the increased thromboembolic risk around the time of cardioversion may not be entirely causal, but confounded by the overall clinical deterioration of patients requiring cardioversion.

Site Variation and Outcomes for Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require multiple antithrombotic therapies. The optimal strategy is debated suggesting increased treatment variation. This study sought to characterize site-level variation in antithrombotic therapies in AF patients after PCI and determine the association with outcomes.

Methods:

Using the retrospective TREAT-AF study (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) from the Veterans Health Administration, patients with newly diagnosed, nonvalvular AF between 2004 and 2015 followed by a PCI with a P2Y 12 -antagonist prescription were identified. Patients were grouped according to the therapy dispensed 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI: oral anticoagulation plus platelet inhibition (OAC+PI) or platelet inhibition only. A combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding was assessed 1 year after PCI and Cox regression was performed to estimate hazard ratios.

Results:

Of 230 762 patients with newly diagnosed AF, 4042 (1.8%) underwent PCI and received a P2Y 12 -antagonist during the observation period (age, 67±9 years; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc, 2.7±1.7; HAS-BLED, 2.6±1.2). Among these, 47% were prescribed OAC+PI, and 53% platelet inhibition only 7 days before until 30 days after the PCI. Across 63 sites, the use of OAC+PI ranged from 19% to 66%. Prescription of OAC+PI was independently associated with a reduction in the combined outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding compared with platelet inhibition only (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.99; P =0.033).

Conclusions:

In patients with established AF undergoing PCI, the use of OAC+PI varied substantially across sites in the 30 days post-PCI. Anticoagulation appeared to be underutilized but was associated with improved outcomes. Strategies to promote OAC+PI and minimize site variation may be useful, particularly in light of recent randomized trials.