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

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.

Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Up to 10% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews for randomized control trials that studied the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies in these patients. Six studies, including 12,158 patients were included. Compared to that in the triple antithrombotic therapy group (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and aspirin), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding was significantly reduced in the dual antithrombotic therapy (non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor) group by 47% (Odds ratio (OR), 0.53; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.35–0.78; I² = 0%). Besides, NOAC plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor was associated with less intracranial hemorrhage compared to VKA plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR: 0.20, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.77). There was no significant difference in the trial-defined major adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or stent thrombosis among all antithrombotic strategies. In conclusion, antithrombotic strategy of NOACs plus P2Y₁₂ inhibitor is safer than, and as effective as, the strategies including aspirin when used in AF patients undergoing PCI.

[Prehospital management of acute coronary syndrome in patients on long-term direct oral anticoagulant treatment]

BACKGROUND

Despite an increasing incidence of patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) under simultaneous treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), neither sufficient scientific data nor uniform guidelines for the anticoagulation treatment of these patients are currently available.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of preclinical treatment of ACS in patients under DOAC treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An internet and paper-based survey of emergency physicians, specialists of internal medicine, anesthesiologists, emergency and intensive care physicians was performed concerning the prehospital treatment of ACS in patients under long-term DOAC treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, 284 questionnaires were answered. Substantial differences in the current treatment of ACS under long-term DOAC therapy were identified. While 39% of the respondents stated that they administer a combination treatment of heparin and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), 36% renounced the administration of heparin. If a dose reduction was performed, 71% answered that they reduce the heparin dosage. Also, in cases of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 48% of the physicians renounced the administration of heparin.

CONCLUSION

In Germany there is currently a heterogeneous practice of emergency treatment of ACS patients under DOAC therapy with respect to the administration of heparin and ASA. Therefore, guidelines of the specialist medical societies should address the prehospital emergency anticoagulation management of ACS in patients under therapy with DOAC, which correspond to the needs of patients and emergency physicians.