Antithrombotic treatment in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: focus on stent thrombosis

Platelet function testing in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Platelet function testing (PFT) could be a useful clinical tool to guide individualized antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to investigate platelet reactivity (PR) in the context of a contemporary registry. "Real-world" data were retrieved from a nationwide, multicenter, observational study of AF patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) undergoing PCI. Patients treated with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, namely clopidogrel or ticagrelor, as part of double or triple antithrombotic therapy, were submitted to PFT before discharge and were followed up for 12 months. Out of 101 patients included in the study, 66 were submitted to PFT while on clopidogrel and 35 while on ticagrelor; PR was 162.9 ± 68 PRU and 46.02 ± 46 PRU, respectively (P < 0.001). High on-treatment PR (HTPR) was observed in 15 patients under clopidogrel (22.7%); 7 of them escalated to ticagrelor. Low on-treatment PR (LTPR) was found in 9 clopidogrel and 28 ticagrelor-treated patients (13.6% vs. 80%, P < 0.001), of whom only 1 de-escalated to clopidogrel. PR did not differ by OAC regimen. PFT results had no impact on aspirin prescription at discharge, while failed to predict significant bleeding events at follow up. Ticagrelor administration led to lower PR and lower incidence of HTPR in comparison with clopidogrel. Physicians' behavior in response to knowledge of a patient's PR was variable. Further studies are required to elucidate the role of PFT as a tool to guide individualized antithrombotic treatment in this clinical scenario.

2021 Focused Update Consensus Guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Executive Summary

The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical guidance for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in the Asia-Pacific region. In these years, many important new data regarding stroke prevention in AF were reported. The practice guidelines subcommittee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, and summarized them in this 2021 focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the APHRS on stroke prevention in AF. We highlighted and focused on several issues, including the importance of the AF Better Care pathway, the advantages of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for Asians, the considerations of use of NOACs for Asian AF patients with single one stroke risk factor beyond gender, the role of lifestyle factors on stroke risk, the use of oral anticoagulants during the "coronavirus disease 2019" pandemic, etc. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician's decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.

2021 Focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical guidance for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in Asia-Pacific region. In these years, many important new data regarding stroke prevention in AF were reported. The Practice Guidelines subcommittee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, and summarized them in this 2021 focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the APHRS on stroke prevention in AF. We highlighted and focused on several issues, including the importance of AF Better Care (ABC) pathway, the advantages of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for Asians, the considerations of use of NOACs for Asian patients with AF with single 1 stroke risk factor beyond gender, the role of lifestyle factors on stroke risk, the use of oral anticoagulants during the "coronavirus disease 2019" (COVID-19) pandemic, etc. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician's decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.

Post-discharge antithrombotic management and clinical outcomes of patients with new-onset or pre-existing atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary stenting: Follow-up data of the MATADOR-PCI study

BACKGROUND

. Patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) do not seem to receive proper antithrombotic therapies and present high rates of adverse clinical events.

METHODS

. We analyzed the follow-up data of the prospective, nationwide MATADOR-PCI registry. We assessed the use of antithrombotic strategies and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 6 months, in patients with new-onset or pre-existing AF admitted for ACS and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

RESULTS

. Out of the 588 patients enrolled in the registry and discharged alive (287 with pre-existing and 301 with new-onset AF), data at 6 months were obtained for 579 (98.5%) patients. Compared to hospital discharge, the rate of triple antithrombotic therapy was significantly reduced (from 76.4% to 23.6% and from 53.8% to 23.6%; both p<0.0001) while dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) increased (from 11.8% to 56.3% and from 5.8% to 30.9%; both p<0.0001) at follow-up, in patients with pre-existing and new-onset AF, respectively. Among patients with a class IA indication to receive oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT), it was prescribed in 91% and 88% of patients with pre-existing and 64% and 62% of new-onset AF, at discharge and follow-up, respectively. At 6 months from discharge the overall rate of MACE was 8.4% and 7.6% (p=0.75), while NACE occurred in 10.8% vs 10.0% (p=0.74) of patients with pre-existing or new-onset AF, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

. At follow-up, DAT was the most used antithrombotic strategy for both patients with pre-existing and new-onset AF with concomitant ACS. These two groups of patients presented comparable rates of MACE and NACE at 6 months.