Unanswered questions in patients with concurrent atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Is a Different Phenomenon than Other Pre-Existing Types of That Arrhythmia

(1) Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) could worsen the prognosis. Yet, there is no definitive answer to whether new-onset AF (NOAF) is a more aggravating diagnosis than other types of that arrhythmia. The purpose of our study was to compare in-hospital clinical course and outcomes of NOAF patients contrary to patients with other pre-existing types of AF. (2) Methods: AMI patients hospitalized in the high-volume cardiological center within 2017−2018 were included in the study. NOAF was noticed in 106 (11%) patients, 95 (10%) with an AF history and AF during AMI formed the AF group, 60 (6%) with an AF history but without AF during AMI constituted the Prior-AF group, and 693 (73%) patients were without an AF before and during AMI. Medical history, routinely monitored clinical parameters, and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed between the groups. (3) Results: NOAF patients, contrary to others, initially had the highest high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-reactive protein (CRP), and glucose levels, and the lowest potassium concentration, with the worst profile of changes for that parameter within the first four days of hospitalization. NOAF patients had the highest rate of ST-elevated AMI (40%), the longest hospitalization (p < 0.001), and the highest in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). Not NOAF, but other AF groups (AF and Prior-AF groups) were more burdened with the previous comorbidities. (4) Conclusions: NOAF could be a distinct phenomenon in AMI patients, identifying those with the worst clinical in-hospital course and outcomes as compared to other types of AF.

Antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndrome and stable coronary artery disease patients with atrial fibrillation: a 3-year retrospective cohort study

Aim: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) occur frequently in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal antithrombotic therapy is still debated. Methods & results: We analyzed 976 coronary artery disease patients with AF from 2013 to 2014. ACS+AF patients tend to take dual antiplatelet therapy (p < 0.001), whereas SCAD+AF patients prefer anticoagulation therapy (warfarin: p < 0.001, dabigatran: p < 0.05). Ventricular arrhythmia, congestive heart failure and ACS were the top three reasons for SCAD group patients' readmission, while reinfarction and congestive heart failure were two major factors in readmission of ACS group. Conclusion: ACS+AF group patients more likely choose dual antiplatelet therapy, whereas SCAD+AF group patients prefer anticoagulation therapy. Compared with ACS group, SCAD group had a higher rate of readmission.

Cost Saving Potential of an Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients after ICD Implantation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a relevant comorbidity in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). Latest generation single-chamber ICD allow the additional sensing of atrial tachyarrhythmias and, therefore, contribute to the early detection and treatment of AF, potentially preventing AF-related stroke. The present study aimed to measure the impact on patient-related costs of this new ICD compared to conventional ICD. A Markov model was developed to simulate the long-term incidence of stroke in patients treated with a single-chamber ICD with or without atrial sensing capabilities. The median annual cost per patient and its difference, the number of strokes avoided, and the cost per stroke avoided were estimated. During a 9-year horizon, the costs for the ICD and stroke treatment were €570 per patient-year for an ICD with atrial sensing capabilities and €491 per patient-year for a conventional ICD. Per 1,000 patients, 4.6 strokes per year are assumed to be avoided by the new device. Higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores are associated with higher numbers of avoided strokes and larger potential for cost savings. Apart from clinical advantages, the use of ICD with atrial sensing capabilities may reduce the incidence of stroke and, in high-risk patients, may also contribute to reduce overall health care costs.

New-onset or Pre-existing Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Coronary Syndromes: Two Distinct Phenomena With a Similar Prognosis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The management and risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndromes constitute a challenge. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of AF whether present at admission or occurring during hospitalization for acute coronary syndromes, as well as trends in treatments and outcome.

METHODS

Data derived from 35 958 patients enrolled between 2004 and 2015 in the AMIS Plus registry were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Pre-existing AF (pre-AF) was present in 1644 (4.7%) while new-onset AF (new-AF) was evident in 309 (0.8%). Presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and need for hemodynamic support was frequent in patients with AF, especially in those with new onset of the arrhythmia. A change of the medical and interventional approaches was observed with a progressive increase in oral anticoagulation prescription and referral for angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions in pre-AF patients. Despite different baseline risk profile and clinical presentations, both AF groups showed high in-hospital and 1-year mortality (in-hospital new-AF vs pre-AF [OR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.53-1.17; P = .246]; 1-year mortality new-AF vs pre-AF [OR, 0.72; 95%CI, 0.31-1.67; P = .448]) Pre-AF but not new-AF independently predicted in-hospital mortality. While mortality declined over the study period for patients with pre-AF, it remained stable among new-AF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While pre-AF is independently associated with in-hospital mortality, new-AF may reflect a worse hemodynamic impact of the acute coronary syndromes, with the latter ultimately driving the prognosis.

Clinical Study on efficacy of allopurinol in patients with acute coronary syndrome and its functional mechanism

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic effect of allopurinol treatment on acute coronary syndrome and to elucidate its possible mechanism.

METHODS

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (n = 100) were recruited as research subjects in our hospital. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, an allopurinol group (n = 50) and a control group (n = 50). These two groups were treated with conventional antiplatelet, anticoagulation and anti-ischemic therapy; allopurinol therapy was added to the allopurinol group based on conventional treatment indications. Biochemical markers such as serum creatinine, uric acid, BNP, blood glucose and blood lipid were compared between the two groups. Indicators of oxidative stress and inflammatory response (MDA, OX-LDL, NO, hs-CRP and TNF-α), as well as cardiovascular events during 2-years follow-up, were recorded.

RESULTS

On admission, there was no difference in serum creatinine, uric acid, BNP, blood glucose or lipid levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, after 1 month of treatment, these levels were improved in patients in the allopurinol group compared to the control group (P < 0.05). MDA, OX-LDL, hs-CRP and TNF-α decreased after treatment periods of 14 days and 1 month. They were also decreased at 3 month, 6 month, 1 year, and 2 year follow-up visits. However, data from the allopurinol group demonstrated significantly lower levels than in the control group (P < 0.05). Additionally, compared with the control group, allopurinol treatment significantly elevated the level of NO (P < 0.05). The total effective rates of the allopurinol group are much higher than in the control group for both angina pectoris (93.2% and 76%, respectively) and ECG (96% and 82%, respectively). Most patients in the allopurinol group (n = 40) and the control group (n = 41) received stent implantation with no significant difference shown between them. The incidence of cardiovascular events during 2 years of follow-up in the allopurinol group was 10%; it was 30% in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Allopurinol has a remarkable effect in the treatment of ACS and can improve the oxidative stress and inflammatory reaction indicators of patients. The protective mechanism of allopurinol might be achieved by suppressing the secretion and release of inflammatory mediators such as TNF-α, hs-CRP, OX-LDL and MDA while increasing levels of NO.

Antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients requiring oral anticoagulant treatment. A meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the benefits and risks of triple therapy (TT) compared with dual therapy (DT) for patients with an indication for anticoagulation who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have atrial fibrillation or other indications for oral anticoagulants. For these patients, TT (oral anticoagulants plus aspirin and clopidogrel) is indicated, but this type of treatment increases the risk of bleeding. Thus, it remains controversial whether these patients can benefit more from TT.

METHODS

We identified 23 clinical trials that compared TT with DT (aspirin and clopidogrel or oral anticoagulants plus a single antiplatelet drug) after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. The follow-up period ranged from 1 month to 25 months. Two coauthors independently recorded the data on interventions and on the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, and major bleeding events.

RESULTS

The 23 clinical trials comprised 22,212 participants. Our analysis was feasible because the baseline characteristics and grouping criteria were similar in all groups. The results indicated that TT was more efficacious than DT [dual antiplatelet (DAPT) or OAC + single antiplatelet] in reducing MACE/stroke (RR = 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.70-0.83; p < 0.00001 and RR = 0.67, 95 % CI: 0.59-0.75; p < 0.00001, respectively) There was a significant reduction in all-cause death in the TT regimen compared with the DT regimen (RR = 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.56-0.73; p < 0.00001 and RR = 0.48, 95 % CI: 0.39-0.58; p < 0.00001, respectively). In a subgroup analysis without retrospective studies, we found that there was no significant difference between TT and DT with regard to MACE/stroke (RR = 1.06, 95 % CI: 0.88-1.27; p = 0.54 and RR = 0.95, 95 % CI: 0.79-1.14; p = 0.58, respectively) and all-cause death (RR = 0.84, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.12; p = 0.24 and RR = 1.13, 95 % CI: 0.78-1.64; p = 0.51, respectively). We also found that TT significantly increased the risk of major bleeding compared with DAPT (RR  = 1.36; 95 % CI: 1.17-1.58; p < 0.0001). However, there was no difference between TT and OAC + single antiplatelet agent (RR = 0.96; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.21; p = 0.71). Finally, in the comparison between TT and OAC + clopidogrel, there were no differences in major bleeding events, MACE and stroke, and all-cause death.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found no statistically significant difference between TT and DT with regard to all-cause death and MACE/stroke risk. At the same time, the available data demonstrated that TT increased the risk of major bleeding. If the international normalized ratio is in the target range, the risk of bleeding may be lowered. The data from Asian countries were limited, and therefore we could not assess the difference between TT and DT in Asian populations. Finally,on the basis of our analysis, we do not recommend TT as conventional treatment for patients taking OACs and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.