Triple therapy for atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary review

In-hospital outcomes and postdischarge mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether advances in management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and introduction of novel oral anticoagulants have changed outcomes in patients with ACS with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the incidence of AF in patients admitted for ACS and to evaluate its association with adverse outcomes, given the recent advances in management of both diseases.

METHODS

Natural language processing search algorithms identified AF in patients admitted with ACS across 13 Northwell Health Hospitals from 2015 to 2021. Hierarchical generalized linear mixed modeling was used to assess the association between AF and in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and stroke outcomes; marginal Cox regression modeling was used to assess the association between AF and postdischarge mortality.

RESULTS

Of 12,315 patients admitted for ACS, 3018 (24.5%) had AF with 1609 (53.3%) newly diagnosed. AF patients more commonly received anticoagulation with an oral anticoagulant (80.4% vs 12.3%) or heparin (61.9% vs 56.9%), had lengthier intensive care unit stay (72 vs 49 hours), and underwent fewer percutaneous coronary interventions (31.9% vs 53.1%). In-hospital bleeding, stroke, and mortality were higher in the AF group (15.3% vs 5.0%, 7.4% vs 2.4%, and 6.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). AF was an independent risk factor for all in-hospital outcomes (odds ratios of 2.5, 2.7, and 2.0 for bleeding, stroke, and mortality, respectively) as well as for postdischarge mortality (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.5).

CONCLUSION

AF is present in 25% of ACS patients and increases risk of in-hospital and postdischarge adverse outcomes. Additional data are required to direct optimal management.

Temporal Trends in Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention From 2014 to 2022 in Japan

Background: Recent revisions of clinical guidelines by the Japanese Circulation Society, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology updated the management of antithrombotic strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the extent to which these guidelines have been implemented in real-world daily clinical practice is unclear. Methods and Results: We conducted surveys on the status of antithrombotic therapy for patients with AF undergoing PCI every 2 years from 2014 to 2022 in 14 cardiovascular centers in Japan. The primary use of drug-eluting stents increased from 10% in 2014 to 95-100% in 2018, and the use of direct oral anticoagulants increased from 15% in 2014 to 100% in 2018, in accordance with the revised practice guidelines. In patients with acute coronary syndrome, the duration of triple therapy within 1 month was approximately 10% until 2018, and increased to >70% from 2020. In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, the duration of triple therapy within 1 month was approximately 10% until 2016, and >75% from 2018. Since 2020, the most common timing of discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy to transition to anticoagulation monotherapy during the chronic phase of PCI has been 1 year after PCI. Conclusions: Japanese interventional cardiologists have updated their treatment strategies for patients with AF undergoing PCI according to revisions of clinical practice guidelines.

The WOEST 2 registry : A prospective registry on antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) also require aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (triple therapy). However, triple therapy increases bleeding. The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and stronger P2Y12 inhibitors has increased. The aim of our study was to gain insight into antithrombotic management over time.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients on OACs for atrial fibrillation or a mechanical heart valve undergoing PCI was performed. Thrombotic outcomes were myocardial infarction, stroke, target-vessel revascularisation and all-cause mortality. Bleeding outcome was any bleeding. We report the 30-day outcome.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 758 patients was 73.5 ± 8.2 years. The CHA2DS2-VASc score was ≥ 3 in 82% and the HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 in 44%. At discharge, 47% were on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), 52% on NOACs, 43% on triple therapy and 54% on dual therapy. Treatment with a NOAC plus clopidogrel increased from 14% in 2014 to 67% in 2019. The rate of thrombotic (4.5% vs 2.0%, p = 0.06) and bleeding (17% vs. 14%, p = 0.42) events was not significantly different in patients on VKAs versus NOACs. Also, the rate of thrombotic (2.9% vs 3.4%, p = 0.83) and bleeding (18% vs 14%, p = 0.26) events did not differ significantly between patients on triple versus dual therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients on combined oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy undergoing PCI are elderly and have both a high bleeding and ischaemic risk. Over time, a NOAC plus clopidogrel became the preferred treatment. The rate of thrombotic and bleeding events was not significantly different between patients on triple or dual therapy or between those on VKAs versus NOACs.

Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

It remains controversial whether long‐term clinical impact of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is different from that of prior AF diagnosed before the onset of AMI.

Methods and Results

The current study population from the CREDO‐Kyoto AMI (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto Acute Myocardial Infarction) Registry Wave‐2 consisted of 6228 patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The baseline characteristics and long‐term clinical outcomes were compared according to AF status (newly diagnosed AF: N=489 [7.9%], prior AF: N=589 [9.5%], and no AF: N=5150 [82.7%]). Median follow‐up duration was 5.5 years. Patients with newly diagnosed AF and prior AF had similar baseline characteristics with higher risk profile than those with no AF including older age and more comorbidities. The cumulative 5‐year incidence of all‐cause death was higher in newly diagnosed AF and prior AF than no AF (38.8%, 40.7%, and 18.7%, P<0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF remained significant with similar magnitude (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12–1.54; P<0.001, and HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14–1.52; P<0.001, respectively). The cumulative 5‐year incidence of stroke decreased in the order of newly diagnosed AF, prior AF and no AF (15.5%, 12.9%, and 6.3%, respectively, P<0.001). The higher adjusted HRs of both newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for stroke, with a greater risk of newly diagnosed AF than that of prior AF (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.56–2.69; P<0.001, and HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00–1.78; P=0.048, respectively). The higher stroke risk of newly diagnosed AF compared with prior AF was largely driven by the greater risk within 30 days. The higher adjusted HRs of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.35–2.22; P<0.001, and HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.82–2.74; P<0.001, respectively) and major bleeding (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.23–1.73; P<0.001, and HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15–1.60; P<0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Newly diagnosed AF in AMI had risks for mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and major bleeding higher than no AF, and comparable to prior AF. The risk of newly diagnosed AF for stroke might be higher than that of prior AF.

Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Data on the efficacy and safety of the combination of warfarin and dual-antiplatelet therapy compared with warfarin and mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) remains scarce. Single-center study of 130 consecutive patients with durable LVAD. Baseline demographics, antithrombotic and antiplatelet regimen, and outcomes were compared between patients receiving warfarin plus dual-antiplatelet therapy (Group 1) and warfarin plus MAPT (Group 2). Antiplatelet therapy was assessed at hospital discharge post-LVAD implant and included aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole. Outcomes at 1-year were assessed in each group. All patients were on aspirin and warfarin. No significant differences with regards to age, gender or ethnicity were noted at baseline between the two groups. Group 1 was more likely to have higher lactate dehydrogenase LDH levels at discharge and a history of stroke. No significant differences in international normalized ratio INR, hemoglobin or hematocrit were noted at discharge. During the study period, 48 patients had gastrointestinal bleeding events: 28 of 68 (41.2%) in Group 1 vs 20 of 62 (32.2%) in Group 2 (P = 0.293). At 1year, no statistically significant differences were noted in gastrointestinal bleeding (Group 1=27.90% vs Group 2 = 25.80, P = 0.784), ischemic stroke (Group 1 = 8.8% vs group 2 = 6.5%, P = 0.612), hemorrhagic stroke (Group 1 = 4.4% vs group 2 = 3.2%, P = 0.725) or mortality (Group 1 = 5.9% vs Group 2 = 1.6%, P = 0.206). Rates of pump thrombosis however were lower in Group 1 (Group 1 = 0% vs Group 2 = 6.5%, P = 0.033). Our study showed a high prevalence of triple-therapy antithrombotic use in LVAD patients with no significant differences in bleeding, stroke or survival. However, the risk for pump thrombosis was lower at 1-year when compared to patient receiving MAPT.

Ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in combination with anticoagulation for treatment of acute coronary syndrome in patients with atrial fibrillation

For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS), it is often challenging to find the optimal balance between the risk for ischemic and hemorrhagic complication when using both antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulation (OAC) with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Current guidelines recommended: (I) double therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor and dose adjusted VKA is reasonable post-stenting; (II) double therapy with clopidogrel and low-dose rivaroxaban (15 mg daily) may be reasonable post-stenting; (III) double therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor and dabigatran 150 mg twice daily is reasonable post-stenting. In the AUGUSTUS trial, most patients were given clopidogrel as part a DAPT regimen, however prasugrel and ticagrelor use allowed albeit in a small percentage of the trial population, underestimating its effect. Ticagrelor and prasugrel are known to have a stronger antiplatelet effect compared to clopidogrel, however randomized studies have not been adequately powered to date allowing comparisons between ticagrelor, prasugrel and clopidogrel together in the setting of anticoagulation for the treatment of patients with ACS and AF. Careful consideration should be given to this scenario to avoid falling into the concept of sacrificing efficacy for safety.

Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Stenting

Background and Purpose- The optimal antithrombotic strategy to balance thromboembolic and bleeding events, especially acute stroke, for patients with atrial fibrillation following coronary stenting remains a matter of debate. We conducted a network meta-analysis to identify the antithrombotic regimen associated with the lowest rate of bleeding and thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting. Methods- PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies of patients with atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting. The outcomes of interest were stroke, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, mortality, and major bleeding. A network meta-analysis was performed comparing the available antithrombotic regimens in the literature. Results- Three randomized and 15 observational studies were included, with a total of 23 478 participants. Median follow-up was 2 years. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that vitamin K antagonist plus single antiplatelet therapy or direct-acting oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy were the most effective regimens in preventing stroke. Direct-acting oral anticoagulant regimens were associated with lower major bleeding rates than vitamin K antagonist regimens. Regimens with dual antiplatelet therapy were associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction. Vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower mortality and low-dose direct-acting oral anticoagulants with decreased major cardiovascular adverse events. Conclusions- Direct-acting oral anticoagulant regimens were associated with less major bleeding and major cardiovascular adverse events, but vitamin K antagonists were associated with decreased mortality and stroke. These results suggest that the decision of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention needs to be individualized.

Antithrombotic treatment in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI: Is dual therapy the winner?

Approximately 7% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation have atrial fibrillation. The optimal antithrombotic treatment in such of patients remains one of the most challenging and difficult scenarios in Cardiology. Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), consisting of dual antiplatelet therapy plus an oral anticoagulant, has been used for decades in order to reduce ischemic and thromboembolic events, while significantly increasing the risk for severe bleeding. Recently, results of several clinical trials suggest that the use of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT), consisting of single antiplatelet therapy plus an oral anticoagulant, reduces the risk of bleeding, while maintaining the same level of efficacy as compared to TAT. These data have been interpreted in a variety of ways, often giving conflicting recommendations and leaving many unanswered questions on the optimal antithrombotic treatments of patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo PCI. DAT consisting of a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and clopidogrel, while omitting aspirin from the immediate post discharge period, appears as an attractive, simplified strategy for most patients and supported by many experts in the field. In this review we aim to better define the role of DAT versus TAT in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI and analyze remaining controversial issues and future expectations.

Dual Anti-Thrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation - Japanese and East-Asian Subgroup Analysis of the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

BACKGROUND

In the RE-DUAL PCI trial, dual anti-thrombotic therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y₁₂inhibitor had a lower risk of bleeding and similar risk reduction of thromboembolic events, compared with warfarin triple therapy, in patients with NVAF undergoing PCI. This subanalysis investigated whether the efficacy and safety of dabigatran dual therapy in Japanese and East-Asian patients enrolled in the RE-DUAL PCI trial were similar to those of the overall patient population of the trial. Methods and Results: RE-DUAL PCI was a multicenter, randomized trial. The primary endpoint was the time to first International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events. Of the East-Asian patients (n=240) enrolled in the RE-DUAL PCI trial, 111 were Japanese and received dabigatran 110 mg (n=50) or 150 mg (n=13) dual therapy, or warfarin triple therapy (n=48). The incidence of the primary endpoint in Japanese patients was 26.0% and 29.2% with dabigatran 110-mg dual therapy and the corresponding warfarin triple therapy, and 23.1% and 30.8% with dabigatran 150-mg dual therapy and the corresponding warfarin triple therapy, respectively. Similar results were observed in the East-Asian population.

CONCLUSIONS

This subanalysis of the RE-DUAL PCI trial demonstrated that, like in the overall patient population, dabigatran dual therapy may offer physicians additional options for managing Japanese and East-Asian patients with NVAF receiving PCI.

Antithrombotic Regimens in Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Whom an Anticoagulant Is Indicated: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who require anticoagulant therapy are at increased risk of bleeding. The optimal regimen for these patients is uncertain. This study aimed to compare safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens used in patients undergoing PCI with concomitant anticoagulant therapy. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed among studies comparing antithrombotic regimens for anticoagulated patients undergoing PCI. The primary outcome of interest was major bleeding. The secondary outcomes were coronary events. The reference intervention was classic triple therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel plus VKA). Cluster rank incorporating risk (major bleeding) and benefit (all-cause death) was performed to identify the most appropriate regimen(s). Results: There were 3 RCTs (6 interventions) and 29 non-RCTs (8 interventions) that met the inclusion criteria with 22,179 patients. Network meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that dual therapy (DT), either with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or direct anticoagulant (DOAC) plus an antiplatelet, significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding compared to triple therapy (TT) [pooled RR of 0.51 (0.30-0.87) and 0.68 (0.49-0.94), respectively]. In addition, VKA-DT significantly reduced the risk of all-cause death compared to TT [pooled RR of 0.40 (0.17-0.93)]. Results from network meta-analysis of non-RCT paralleled that of RCTs. No significant differences of coronary events were found. Conclusions: In conclusion, for anticoagulated patients undergoing PCI, dual therapy, either with warfarin or DOAC plus an antiplatelet, should be considered due to its optimal balance on efficacy and safety.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation: The Triple Trouble

One of the most common conundrums in all cardiovascular medicine pertains to the care of patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention, because of both dual antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulant therapy would seem to be necessary to reduce risks of stent thrombosis and thromboembolism, respectively, but also with an inevitable trade-off of more bleeding. Patients who require triple therapy are at high risk of both ischaemia and bleeding; therefore, defining a personalised secondary prevention strategy aimed at achieving the best net clinical benefit is essential. The good news is that we have entered an era of increased perceived and tangible safety that applies to both non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants and newer drug-eluting stents. Even if the consistency across the major trials and the significantly lower risk of bleeding with dual therapy make it hard to argue that triple therapy should be used routinely, the aggregate evidence suggests that the net clinical benefit of dual therapy should give cardiologists confidence to drop aspirin when they are using a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy with drug-eluting stents. Waiting for more randomised trials and meta-analyses, for the time being, in patients not in clinical trials, full-dose oral triple therapy with dual antiplatelet agents and full-dose anticoagulation should be avoided as a routine practice, and the choice of the proper, that is, safer, oral anticoagulant, namely a non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant, may be regarded by now as an additional bleeding avoiding strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Dual versus triple therapy in patients on oral anticoagulants and undergoing coronary stent implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is contrasting evidence regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen after percutaneous coronary stent implantation in patients on oral anticoagulants. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to explore the comparative efficacy and safety of dual (an antiplatelet plus an oral anticoagulant) versus triple therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy plus an oral anticoagulant).

METHODS

We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (OSs) addressing this issue. The efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. The safety outcomes were major bleeding events and all bleeding events. The analyses were stratified by type of anticoagulant and of antiplatelet used in dual therapy.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and ten OSs met our inclusion criteria including a total of 10,126 patients. 5671 patients received triple therapy whereas 4455 received dual therapy. Median follow up was 12 months. There was no difference between dual therapy and triple therapy regarding efficacy outcomes. Dual therapy significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.66; CI 95% 0.52-0.83; P = 0.0005) and of all bleeding events (RR 0.67, CI 95% 0.55-0.80; P < 0.0001). The effect was consistent regardless of the type of antiplatelet and anticoagulant used in dual therapy.

CONCLUSION

Dual antithrombotic therapy after coronary stenting in anticoagulated patients significantly reduces bleeding events compared with triple therapy. Dual therapy might be considered in this setting especially when bleeding risk outweighs ischemic risk, although our study was not sufficiently powered to detect a difference in ischemic endpoints.

Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing PCI: a Fading Role

Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), consisting of aspirin, a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist and oral anticoagulant (OAC) medication has been considered as an 'unavoidable' strategy for a 1-12 months for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients post acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary angioplasty with stenting. However, TAT has rather poorly been adopted in real life practice, mainly because of an accompanying increased bleeding potential and lack of definitive results of randomized clinical trials. Several registries, meta-analyses and small randomized trials have so far provided the base of guidelines recommendations. Furthermore, in the recently published Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects with Atrial Fibrillation who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PIONEER AF-PCI) trial involving 2124 patients, the primary safety endpoint of clinically significant bleeding was significantly reduced in the rivaroxaban low dose (15 mg daily) plus single P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist arm compared to TAT, with no difference in the secondary efficacy endpoint. Despite several limitations of the PIONEER AF-PCI trial, it appears that among patients who omit aspirin, there may be equivalent ischemic protection with dual therapy and no disadvantage for additional risk of thrombotic events.

Optimum Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Requiring Long-Term Anticoagulation and Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Management of patients on long-term anticoagulation requiring percutaneous coronary intervention is challenging. Triple therapy with oral anticoagulant and dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care. However, there is no strong evidence to support this strategy. There is emerging data regarding the safety and efficacy of dual therapy with oral anticoagulant and single antiplatelet therapy in these patients. In this comprehensive review we highlight available evidence regarding various antithrombotic regimens' efficacy and safety in patient with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with long-term anticoagulation therapy requirements.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Where Are We Now?

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the literature and provide guidance to practitioners regarding double therapy (DT) and triple therapy (TT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and MEDLINE (January 2000 to February 2018) were searched using the following terms: atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention, anticoagulation, dual-antiplatelet therapy, clopidogrel, aspirin, ticagrelor, prasugrel, and triple therapy.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

The results included randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials and meta-analyses. Each study was reported based on study design, population, intervention, comparator, and key cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 15 studies were included in the review. The majority of studies evaluating DT and TT utilized clopidogrel and warfarin as components of the regimen, although there are emerging data with newer agents. Evidence purporting DT regimens to be equally effective in preventing CV events and improved safety profiles compared with TT regimens included populations with relatively low risk for recurrent CV events, and many of these studies were observational in nature. Overall, current evidence as well as American and European guidelines support the use of TT in patients with AF who require PCI for the least possible amount of time, depending on patient-specific factors involving bleeding and thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of patients with AF who require PCI, TT should be used for the shortest period of time possible. DT regimens may be used in patients requiring PCI who have low risk for thrombosis and/or high bleeding risk.

Real-world antithrombotic therapies and clinical outcomes after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with atrial fibrillation: a multi-center cohort study

Previous reports have focused on cardiovascular and bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, antithrombotic treatment strategies and clinical outcomes after second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation in AF patients remain to be determined. We enrolled 244 consecutive AF patients treated with second-generation DES. The study population was derived from multi-center AF registry (including 8 centers in Japan) from 2010 to 2012. Prescription of antithrombotic agents and clinical outcomes were retrospectively examined. Ninety-two patients (37.7%) were prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) at discharge and 152 patients (62.3%) were given DAPT plus oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin. The median follow-up period was 730 days. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were not significantly different (2-year event rate, 17.6 vs. 13.5%, p = 0.37), but bleeding events were significantly higher in the DAPT plus OAC group than in the DAPT group (2-year event rate, 6.1 vs. 17.9%, p = 0.033). In a sub-analysis of DAPT plus OAC patients, adequate time in the therapeutic range (TTR) group (TTR ≥ 65%) was not significantly different from the suboptimal OAC group (TTR < 65%) for bleeding events, but it had a lower incidence of MACCE, resulting in better net clinical outcomes (composite of MACCE and major bleeding, 2-year event rate, 9.2 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.008). DAPT plus OAC remains more common in AF patients undergoing PCI with second-generation DES. Under adequate TTR, DAPT plus OAC showed better net clinical outcomes by reducing MACCE without increasing bleeding.

Dabigatran versus vitamin k antagonist: an observational across-cohort comparison in acute coronary syndrome patients with atrial fibrillation

Essentials Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with atrial fibrillation (AF) is a therapeutic challenge. Dual and triple antithrombotic therapy showed a similar thrombotic risk in ACS patients with AF. The omission of aspirin during the first month did not increase the rate of ischemic events. Replacement of vitamin K antagonist by dabigatran leads to an increased thrombotic risk.

SUMMARY

Background Dual antithrombotic therapy comprising a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus clopidogrel reduces the incidence of major bleeding compared with triple therapy (VKA + clopidogrel + aspirin) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), with a similar thrombotic risk. The oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran (150 mg twice a day) showed superiority over VKA in non-valvular AF, but data supporting its use in AF patients presenting with ACS are limited. Objective We sought to evaluate the efficacy of dabigatran vs. VKA in the management of AF patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for an ACS. Methods In this open-label study, 133 consecutive patients received dabigatran plus clopidogrel. Another cohort of 133 patients treated with VKA plus clopidogrel was used as the control group. Results After propensity score adjustment, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events over 24 months was higher with dabigatran vs. VKA (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-3.56). Similar rates of major bleeding were found (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.96). Conclusions In AF patients presenting with ACS, replacement of VKA by dabigatran concurrently with clopidogrel is associated with an increased thrombotic risk, without a reduction in major bleeding.

Treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding with idarucizumab in a patient receiving dabigatran

PURPOSE

A case report describing use of idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal without the use of hemostatic agents in a patient who developed acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding while receiving triple antithrombotic therapy is presented.

SUMMARY

A 77-year-old man with a complex cardiac history presented to the emergency room with chief complaints of black tarry stools and low blood pressures for 4 days. His past medical history included recent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, stage 3 chronic kidney disease, and cholecystectomy. His triple antithrombotic therapy consisted of aspirin, clopidogrel, and dabigatran. The patient stated that his last dose of dabigatran was taken the night before. Serum dabigatran levels were not measured. Due to suspicion of acute upper GI bleeding, all antithrombotic agents were withheld. Treatment with idarucizumab, i.v. pantoprazole, and blood transfusion was ordered. An upper endoscopy was safely performed 24 hours later and revealed a minor Mallory-Weiss tear. The patient was discharged 48 hours later with prescriptions for acid suppressant and triple antithrombotic therapy; his melena had resolved before discharge. At 14-week follow-up, the patient reported that his cardiologist had deleted aspirin from his antithrombotic regimen.

CONCLUSION

A patient who had recently undergone PCI and DES placement and was receiving aspirin, clopidogrel, and dabigatran for atrial fibrillation was successfully treated for acute GI bleeding with idarucizumab without the use of a hemostatic agent.

The effect of acenocoumarol on the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel

Patients exhibiting high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) are at an increased risk of atherothrombotic events following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The use of concomitant medication which is metabolised by the hepatic cytochrome P450 system, such as phenprocoumon, is associated with HPR. We assessed the level of platelet reactivity on clopidogrel in patients who received concomitant treatment with acenocoumarol (another coumarin derivative). Patients scheduled for PCI were included in a prospective, single centre, observational registry. Patients who were adequately pre-treated with clopidogrel were eligible for this analysis, which included 1,582 patients, of whom 104 patients (6.6 %) received concomitant acenocoumarol treatment. Platelet reactivity, as measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and expressed in P2Y12 Reaction Units (PRU), was significantly higher in patients on concomitant acenocoumarol treatment (mean PRU 229 ± 88 vs 187 ± 95; p< 0.001). In patients with concomitant acenocoumarol use, the proportion of patients with HPR was higher, defined as PRU > 208 (57.7 % vs 41.1 %; p=0.001) and PRU236 (49.0 % vs 31.4 %; p< 0.001). In multivariable analysis, concomitant acenocoumarol use was independently associated with a higher PRU and the occurrence of HPR defined as PRU236 (OR 2.00, [1.07–3.79]), but not with HPR defined as PRU > 208 (OR 1.37, [0.74–2.54]). PRU also was significantly increased after 1:1 propensity matching (+28.2; p< 0.001). As this was an observational study, confounding by indication cannot be excluded, although multivariable analyses and propensity matching were performed. The impact of the findings from this hypothesis-generating study on clinical outcome requires further investigation.

Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Choosing an antithrombotic regimen after coronary intervention in patients with concomitant indication for anticoagulation is a challenge commonly encountered by clinicians.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials comparing outcomes of triple therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) with dual therapy (single antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) in patients taking long-term anticoagulants after percutaneous coronary intervention. Major bleeding was the primary outcome. Random effects overall risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird model.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials with a total of 7276 patients met our selection criteria. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months major bleeding was higher in the triple therapy cohort compared with dual therapy (6.6% vs 3.8%; RR 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.98; P <.01). No difference was observed between the 2 groups for all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.43; P = .93), major adverse cardiac events (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.8-1.32; P = .83), thromboembolic events (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.49-2.10; P = .96), myocardial infarction (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.09; P = .21), stent thrombosis (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46-1.3; P = .33), and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15; P = .33).

CONCLUSION

In patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, a strategy of single antiplatelet therapy confers a benefit of less major bleeding with no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or thromboembolic event rate compared with dual antiplatelet therapy.

Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Triple antithrombotic therapy with warfarin plus two antiplatelet agents is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with atrial fibrillation, but this therapy is associated with a high risk of bleeding.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone PCI to triple therapy with warfarin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) and aspirin (for 1 to 3 months) (triple-therapy group) or dual therapy with dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg twice daily) plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) and no aspirin (110-mg and 150-mg dual-therapy groups). Outside the United States, elderly patients (≥80 years of age; ≥70 years of age in Japan) were randomly assigned to the 110-mg dual-therapy group or the triple-therapy group. The primary end point was a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event during follow-up (mean follow-up, 14 months). The trial also tested for the noninferiority of dual therapy with dabigatran (both doses combined) to triple therapy with warfarin with respect to the incidence of a composite efficacy end point of thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism), death, or unplanned revascularization.

RESULTS

The incidence of the primary end point was 15.4% in the 110-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 26.9% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.63; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority) and 20.2% in the 150-mg dual-therapy group as compared with 25.7% in the corresponding triple-therapy group, which did not include elderly patients outside the United States (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.88; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of the composite efficacy end point was 13.7% in the two dual-therapy groups combined as compared with 13.4% in the triple-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.29; P=0.005 for noninferiority). The rate of serious adverse events did not differ significantly among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone PCI, the risk of bleeding was lower among those who received dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor than among those who received triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, and aspirin. Dual therapy was noninferior to triple therapy with respect to the risk of thromboembolic events. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-DUAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164864 .).

Safety and efficacy of anti-thrombotic regimens in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention requiring oral anticoagulation: A traditional and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reports have been inconsistent in generating a consensus for optimal treatment strategy for patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who also require oral anticoagulation (OAC). We conducted a traditional and network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anti-thrombotic regimens in this subset of patients.

METHODS

30 articles were recovered through preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to December 2016.

RESULTS

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was found to be the safest treatment modality when compared to triple therapy (TT) or combination of OAC and single antiplatelet agent (OAC+SAP) [Major bleeding: (DAPT vs OAC+SAP: odds ratio (OR), 0.53; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.30-0.91) (DAPT vs TT: OR, 0.45; 95% CrI, 0.31-0.64)]. There were no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular (CV) or total survival, stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization (TVR) amongst the three treatment arms. TT was ranked superior for stroke reduction (SUCRA, 69%) followed by OAC+SAP and DAPT. When traditional analysis was adjusted for randomized data, OAC+SAP was equivalent to TT with regards to stroke (OR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-1.46; p=0.39) and showed significant reduction in MACE and total mortality.

CONCLUSION

DAPT was found to be the safest and equally effective regimen when compared to TT and OAC+SAP. However this strategy bears considerable risk to patients with high thromboembolic risk. This issue can be encountered by using OAC+SAP as an alternative of TT in patients with intermediate to high stroke risk and intermediate to high bleeding propensity.

Initiation and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after inpatient percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in Germany: An electronic healthcare database cohort study

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing the routine outpatient dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Germany are scarce. The aim of this study was (i) to investigate the initiation and duration of DAPT after inpatient PCI with stent implantation in Germany, and (ii) to identify factors associated with DAPT discontinuation during the recommended treatment period.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was based on data from a large German electronic healthcare database of the years 2004 to 2009. The study population comprised four groups of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable angina pectoris undergoing inpatient PCI with either bare metal stent (BMS) or drug eluting stent (DES) implantation between 2005 and 2008. Initiation of outpatient DAPT within a period from 100 days before the PCI to 60 days after the PCI was ascertained. Time until end of treatment was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors potentially associated with DAPT discontinuation, like sex, age, cardiovascular comorbidity, contraindications, and other antithrombotic drugs were analysed in a Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 37,001 patients. Depending on the type of stent and the indication for the PCI, DAPT was initiated in 85 % (ACS/BMS) and 95 % (AP/DES) of all patients. Of those, 12 % (AP/DES) and 64 % (ACS/BMS) discontinued DAPT during the recommended treatment duration. An age of over 80 years (OR 1.2-1.5 compared to patients aged 0-49 years) and the use of phenprocoumon (OR 2.7-5.0 compared to no phenprocoumon) were associated with an increased risk of DAPT discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing inpatient PCI with stent implantation received DAPT. However, DAPT discontinuation during the recommended time span was frequent, particularly in patients suffering from ACS. On the other hand, especially patients with AP and DES were often treated longer than recommended.

Triple Antithrombotic Therapy With Aspirin, P2Y12 Inhibitor, and Warfarin After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Triple antithrombotic therapy is used in patients who require systemic anticoagulation and undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring dual antiplatelet therapy. Bleeding with this combination is significant; however, few studies have described outcomes with the use of newer oral P2Y12 inhibitors in this setting.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare outcomes among patients prescribed triple therapy with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared to triple therapy with clopidogrel in patients who underwent PCI and required warfarin.

Methods:

We retrospectively evaluated 168 patients who received either prasugrel (n = 32) or ticagrelor (n = 10) and were matched (1:3) to those who received clopidogrel (n = 126) at the time of discharge from the index PCI visit. Matching was performed based on age ±10 years, sex, and indication for PCI. The primary outcome was the incidence of any bleeding during the 12-month follow-up. We also evaluated major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

Results:

Patient baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was a significant excess of bleeding in patients who received prasugrel or ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel as part of triple therapy (28.6% vs 12.7%; odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-8.34). No differences were seen between groups in MACCEs.

Conclusions:

The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor as part of triple antithrombotic therapy among patients who underwent PCI and received warfarin was associated with significantly more bleeding compared to patients who received clopidogrel. Therefore, higher potency P2Y12 inhibitors should be used cautiously in these patients.

How I use anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and conveys a significant risk of morbidity and mortality due to related stroke and systemic embolism. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is the mainstay of thromboembolism prevention, and management of anticoagulation can be challenging. For patients without significant valvular disease, decisions around anticoagulation therapy are first based on the presence of additional stroke risk factors, as measured by the CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75, diabetes, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65-74, and sex category [female]) score. Patients with increased CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (by regional guidelines) should next be evaluated to determine if they are candidates for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy. This should focus on assessment of concomitant valve disease and/or impaired renal function. In eligible patients, the cumulative data support a preference for NOACs over warfarin, as NOACs appear safer and more effective as a group. However, there are no direct, randomized comparisons between NOACs, and therefore, selecting among them can be difficult. In addition, important patient groups remain underrepresented in major clinical trials, and their management is often left to clinician judgment. Data from emerging clinical trials will help guide physicians; however, patient engagement in decisions regarding OAC management will remain vital to ensuring appropriate balance of risks and optimizing health outcomes.

Antithrombotic therapy before, during and after emergency angioplasty for ST elevation myocardial infarction

The first three hours after symptom onset hold the maximum potential for myocardial reperfusion and salvage in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. During this period timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or, when PPCI is not promptly feasible, pre-hospital administration of fibrinolyis or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa-inhibitor (GPI) have been shown to restore coronary patency and reperfusion and even result in myocardial infarction (MI) abortion. On the other hand, oral antiplatelet therapy may not yet guarantee sufficient platelet inhibition. Patients presenting after this golden time have less, if any, benefit from an aggressive antithrombotic treatment prior to PPCI. Antithrombotic treatment during primary angioplasty should be tailored on the basis of the coronary thrombotic burden, vascular approach and the patient's risk of bleeding complications. A GPI-based approach may be favourable in patients presenting early with large MI and high thrombus burden, whereas a bivalirudin-based approach without GPI may be preferred in patients with higher bleeding risk. There are no data to support the use of GPI in bailout conditions. The powerful oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, prasugrel and ticagrelor, have been clearly shown to prevent stent thrombosis and recurrent ischaemic events after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients. Open issues remaining are the treatment of patients with high bleeding risk, such as the elderly and those requiring anticoagulation, as well as the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after STEMI.

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulants with Dual versus Single Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

The combined use of dual antiplatelet therapy with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is required after coronary artery stenting or acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis (Embase and MEDLINE search) of the comparative effects of triple antithrombotic therapy (TT) versus OAC with single antiplatelet therapy (dual therapy [DT]) on all-cause mortality, stroke, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization, and major bleeding. Three prospective controlled studies and five cohort studies compared TT versus DT. We identified three prospective controlled and five cohort studies with 4564 patients on TT and 1848 on DT with an average follow-up duration of 10.1 months. TT is associated with similar rates of all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding but significantly lower rates of MI compared with DT.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple antithrombotic therapy is associated with similar mortality and bleeding rates but fewer MIs compared with OAC and single antiplatelet therapy.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Long-Term Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Treatment

The relative cardiovascular (CV) safety of oral anticoagulants continues to be debated, and in particular concerns for risk of myocardial infarction (MI) have been raised. We analyzed the risk of MI in patients treated long term with oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists [VKA], direct thrombin inhibitors or activated X factor antagonist) for atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Randomized, phase 3 trials comparing novel anticoagulants to VKA were searched. Information on study design and clinical outcomes was extracted. The primary end-point of the analysis was the occurrence of MI or acute coronary syndrome. A Bayesian multiple treatment analysis was performed using fixed-effect and random-effects modeling.

RESULTS

Twelve trials including 100,524 randomized patients were analyzed. The odds for MI in NMA were worse with dabigatran when compared to VKA, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban (OR: 0.66 CI: 0.49-0.87; OR: 0.56 CI: 0.38-0.82, OR: 0.59 CI 0.40-0.88, and OR: 0.71 CI: 0.50-1.0, respectively).The posterior probability of being the first best choice of treatment was 53.5% for rivaroxaban, 33.8% for apixaban, 9.5% for ximelagatran, 2.0% for edoxaban, 1.2% for VKA, and 0.007% for dabigatran.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a considerable heterogeneity regarding CV safety among oral anticoagulants. Differences in risk of MI may influence the choice of treatment. Multiple treatment NMA found 29%-44% higher odds of MI with dabigatran supporting the concerns regarding its CV safety.

Engaging with quality improvement in anticoagulation management

Anticoagulants are highly effective at preventing thrombosis across a variety of clinical indications. However, their use can also lead to devastating effects, including major bleeding and death. Anticoagulation providers strive to balance the benefits of anticoagulant therapy with the risks of major bleeding. A measure of quality care can be used to assess the strengths and potential weaknesses in any system of coordinated care delivery. Quality measures in anticoagulation include patient-centered outcomes (e.g. major bleeding, time in the therapeutic range) and provider- or process-focused outcomes (e.g. compliance with guideline recommendations and response times to out-of-range laboratory values). Engaging in quality improvement activities allows anticoagulation providers to assess their own performance and identify areas for targeted interventions. This review summarizes the justification for engaging in quality improvement for anticoagulation management and describes a number of example programs. Interventions benefiting the management of both warfarin and the direct oral anticoagulants are included. The review also details potential quality measures and resources for any anticoagulation provider looking to begin a quality improvement process.

Antithrombotic Regimens for Patients Taking Oral Anticoagulation After Coronary Intervention: A Meta-analysis of 16 Clinical Trials and 9,185 Patients

The optimal antithrombotic regimen remains controversial in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing coronary stenting. This study sought to compare efficacy and safety outcomes of triple therapy (OAC, aspirin, and clopidogrel) vs dual therapy (clopidogrel with aspirin or OAC) in these patients. We hypothesize OAC plus clopidogrel could be the optimal regimen for patients with indications for OAC receiving stent implantation. Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other Internet sources were searched for clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of triple vs dual therapy for patients taking OAC after coronary stenting. Sixteen eligible trials including 9185 patients were identified. The risks of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82‐1.39, P = 0.65), all‐cause mortality (OR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.76‐1.27, P = 0.89), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.77‐1.31, P = 0.97), and stent thrombosis (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.49‐1.69, P = 0.75) were similar between triple and dual therapy. Compared with dual therapy, triple therapy was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35‐0.94, P = 0.03) but with higher major bleeding (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.11‐2.10, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.05‐2.42, P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis indicated there were similar ischemic stroke and major bleeding outcomes between triple therapy and therapy with OAC plus clopidogrel. Treatment with OAC and clopidogrel was associated with similar efficacy and safety outcomes compared with triple therapy. Triple therapy could be replaced by OAC plus clopidogrel without any concern about additional risk of thrombotic events.

Editor-in-chief's picks from 2014: part two

As I spent countless hours pouring over hundreds of manuscripts to select those that rose to the top over the past year, I became incredibly excited about being part of a Journal that produces such wonderfully rich and diverse content each year. I have personally selected the papers (both original investigations and review articles) from 13 distinct specialties for your review. There are approximately 150 articles selected across this 2-part series, which represents less than 3% of the papers submitted to JACC in 2014. In order to present the full breadth of this important research in a consumable fashion, we will present these manuscripts over the course of 2 issues of JACC. Part One includes the sections: Congenital Heart Disease, Coronary Disease & Interventions, Genetics, Omics, & Tissue Regeneration, CV Prevention & Health Promotion, Cardiac Failure, and Cardiomyopathies. Part Two includes the sections: Hypertension, Imaging, Metabolic Disorders & Lipids, Neurovascular & Neurodegenerative Disorders, Rhythm Disorders, Valvular Heart Disease, and Vascular Medicine (1-86).