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

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease With Recent or Remote Events: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Ongoing debate remains regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following: (i) dual-pathway therapy (DPT; oral anticoagulant [OAC] plus antiplatelet) vs triple therapy (OAC and dual-antiplatelet therapy) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and (iii) OAC monotherapy vs DPT at least 1 year after PCI or ACS. Following a 2-stage process, we identified systematic reviews published between 2019 and 2022 on these 2 clinical questions, and we updated the most comprehensive search for additional RCTs published up to October 2022. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.

Results

Based on 6 RCTs (n = 10,435), DPT reduced major bleeding (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.73) and increased stent thrombosis (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.36), vs triple therapy after PCI or medically-managed ACS, with no significant differences in MACE and death. In 2 RCTs (n = 2905), OAC monotherapy reduced major bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.91) vs DPT in AF patients with remote PCI or ACS, with no significant differences in MACE or death.

Conclusions

In patients with AF and coronary artery disease, using less-aggressive antithrombotic treatment (DPT after PCI or ACS, and OAC alone after remote PCI or ACS) reduced major bleeding, with an increase in stent thrombosis with recent PCI. These results support a minimalist yet personalized antithrombotic strategy for these patients.

New Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: There is controversy over whether use of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) associates with increased hemorrhage risk compared with non-NOAC. Meanwhile, determining which NOAC to use remains unclear. We aimed to summarize the evidence about NOACs in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention for patients with total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA).

Methods: We searched RCTs assessing NOACs for VTE prophylaxis in adults undergoing THA and TKA in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane up to May 2021. Primary outcomes were VTE [included deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE)], major VTE, and major bleeding. The rank probabilities of each treatment were summarized by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve area (SUCRA).

Results: 25 RCTs with 42,994 patients were included. Compared with non-NOAC, NOACs were associated with a decreased risk of VTE (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55–0.84) and major VTE (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.35–0.76). Additionally, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban but not dabigatran and betrixaban, did confer a higher efficacy compared with non-NOAC. None of the individual NOACs increased the risk of bleeding, while apixaban and betrixaban were even associated with a decreased risk of bleeding. In the comparison of different NOACs, rivaroxaban was associated with the greatest benefits in VTE (SUCRA = 79.6), DVT (SUCRA = 88.8), and major VTE (SUCRA = 89.9) prevention. Furthermore, subgroup analysis confirmed that NOACs associated with a higher efficacy tendency in patients with follow-up duration <60 days than follow-up duration ≥60 days.

Conclusion: Evidence suggests that NOACs exert more benefits on VTE prophylaxis, and none of the individual NOACs increased hemorrhage compared with non-NOAC. Among various NOACs, rivaroxaban is recommended in patients with lower bleeding risk, and apixaban is recommended in patients with higher bleeding risk.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021266890].

Optimisation of oral anticoagulants for patients with atrial fibrillation within 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic strategy, especially regarding oral anticoagulants (OACs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with bleeding and thrombosis risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), remains unknown. This study explored the optimal oral anticoagulants for AF patients after PCI using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through December 2020. Risk ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and random-effects models were used to compare different antithrombotic strategies through network meta-analysis, and the combination of antithrombotic agents was ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and rankograms. Interval plots were drawn to observe pairwise comparisons between the different strategies.

RESULTS

Five studies of 11,532 patients were included. Factor IIa inhibitor 110 mg bid plus a P2Y12 inhibitor had the greatest advantage for reducing Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding; Factor Xa inhibitor plus a P2Y12 inhibitor had the greatest advantage for reducing International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding. For patients at risk of stroke plus all-cause death, factor IIa inhibitor 150 mg bid plus a P2Y12 inhibitor should be prioritised, and for those at risk of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis, vitamin K antagonists plus a P2Y12 inhibitor were preferred.

CONCLUSION

Factor IIa inhibitor 110 mg, factor IIa inhibitor 150 mg, factor Xa inhibitor and vitamin K antagonists should be selected in different situations.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Potent Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), current guidelines recommend against combining potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, but the evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors with clopidogrel in patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting outcomes according to the P2Y12 inhibitor used. Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were the safety endpoints, while the efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor were compared with clopidogrel. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between patients treated with dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) versus triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT).

RESULTS

Four RCTs that included 10,057 patients were included in this analysis. Potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared with clopidogrel (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.59, p = 0.01; number needed to harm 18, 95% CI 12-36). This finding was consistent regardless of the concomitant antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT; p = 0.69). The risk of MACE did not differ between potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors and clopidogrel (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57-1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI, potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors increase the risk of clinically relevant bleeding compared with clopidogrel, with no evident benefit in terms of MACE reduction.