A systematic review of randomized trials comparing double versus triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Chronic Coronary Disease in Older Adults

The number of older adults age ≥75 with chronic coronary disease (CCD) continues to rise. CCD is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality, and disability in older adults. Older adults are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials of CCD, which limits generalizability to older adults living with multiple chronic conditions and geriatric syndromes. This review discusses the presentation of CCD in older adults, reviews the guideline-directed medical and invasive therapies, and recommends a patient-centric approach to making treatment decisions.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies

Background

Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified.

Objectives

The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Design

The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials.

Setting

The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017.

Participants

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Data sources

Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics.

Interventions

Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results

The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195).

Conclusions

This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy.

Limitations

The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted.

Future work

Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Coronary Artery Disease

The prevention of atherothrombotic events is the primary goal in the treatment of patients with arteriosclerotic disorders. Despite recent improvements in the management of coronary artery disease (CAD) with revascularization techniques and antiplatelet therapy, some patients remain at risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. This could be related to additional thrombin generation. As a result, there has been interest in developing novel therapies to prevent thromboembolic events, targeting thrombin-mediated pathways. These include non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This article aims to summarize the recent clinical studies that investigated the role of NOACs in CAD.

An update on antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients in long-term ambulatory setting after percutaneous coronary intervention: where do we go from here?

INTRODUCTION

In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it is unclear which combination of antithrombotic drugs is preferable and which is the optimal duration of treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the available evidence in this area resulting from single studies and meta-analyses. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons between different non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC), the authors review the available studies with NOACS in these patients and derived indirect comparisons.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients with AF who undergo PCI, a dual antithrombotic strategy which includes a NOAC plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor (preferably clopidogrel) should be considered as the preferred treatment option in most cases. Oral anticoagulation associated with dual antiplatelet therapy (triple antithrombotic therapy) should be offered for no longer than 30 days to patients with very high thrombotic and low hemorrhagic risk. It is unclear whether the dual antithrombotic strategy should be continued beyond 12 months in patients at high risk of thrombotic events. Additional data from adequately powered controlled studies are needed to support the long-term efficacy of this strategy and to establish the best patient-tailored approach in this complex scenario.

Double or Triple Antithrombotic Treatment in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have traditionally received triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to reduce atherothrombotic events, even though this strategy is associated with a high risk of severe bleeding. Recent trials have indicated that dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT), consisting of a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus an OAC, may be superior to TAT in terms of bleeding risk; however, the trade-off regarding ischemic complications may be questionable. Patients who have had a myocardial infarction (MI) before undergoing PCI warrant special consideration because of the accompanying high ischemic risk, including stent thrombosis, which might be exacerbated by an aspirin-free strategy such as DAT. In particular, in the acute phase of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), the highly prothrombotic milieu may necessitate initial TAT, though durations may vary, making a tailored antithrombotic regimen for this high-risk subset of patients a fairly challenging and difficult scenario for clinicians. Since patients with MI, especially STEMI, are underrepresented in randomized trials, data regarding the optimal antithrombotic treatment in such patients are sparse. This review aims to analyze the outcomes of different antithrombotic regimens in patients with MI and AF undergoing PCI, define the role of DAT versus TAT regarding safety and efficacy outcomes, and address controversial issues and future perspectives.

Advances in the management of atrial fibrillation with a special focus on non-pharmacological approaches to prevent thromboembolism: a review of current recommendations

Atrial fibrillation (AFIB) is the most common heart rhythm abnormality and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. While the treatment of AFIB involves strategies of rate with or without rhythm control, it is also essential to strategize appropriate therapies to prevent thromboembolic complications arising from AFIB. Previously, anticoagulation was the main treatment option which exposed patients to higher than usual risk of bleeding. However, with the advent of new technology, novel therapeutic options aimed at surgical or percutaneous exclusion or occlusion of the left atrial appendage in preventing thromboembolic complications from AFIB have evolved. This review evaluates recent advances and therapeutic options in treating AFIB with a special focus on both surgical and percutaneous interventions which can reduce and/or eliminate thromboembolic complications of AFIB.

Antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary angioplasty: rational convincement and supporting evidence

BACKGROUND

The management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is still a matter of debate. We aim to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of dual therapy (DT) compared to triple therapy (TT) in this clinical setting.

METHODS

A study level meta-analysis and a review of randomized trials selected using PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Web of Science, and abstract from major cardiology congresses. Six randomized trials with 12,156 patients evaluating the strategy of DT vs. TT in patients treated with PCI with indication for long-term OAT were included.

RESULTS

Patients treated with DT demonstrated a 45% relative reduction in the risk of TIMI major bleeding (1.71% vs. 2.99%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.71; P<0.0001) and TIMI minor bleeding compared to TT arm (4.67% vs 7.83%, OR 0.55 95% CI 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0007). All-cause mortality was similar in two arms (3.95% vs 3.77%, P = 0.92), as well as cardiovascular mortality (2.21% vs 2.19%, P = 0.97). DT was associated with a borderline increase of ST (1.02% vs 0.67%, P = 0.07). No significant differences were observed in occurrence of MI and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that DT is safer than TT with regard to occurrence of major bleeding. DT with a direct oral anticoagulant plus clopidogrel at discharge could be effective in most patients, maintaining aspirin in periprocedural phase and as longer "tailored" treatment for patients at higher ischemic risk.