Continuation versus Interruption of Oral Anticoagulation during TAVI

BACKGROUND

One third of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have an indication for oral anticoagulation owing to concomitant diseases. Interruption of oral anticoagulation during TAVI may decrease the risk of bleeding, whereas continuation may decrease the risk of thromboembolism.

METHODS

We conducted an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial involving patients who were receiving oral anticoagulants and were planning to undergo TAVI. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to periprocedural continuation or interruption of oral anticoagulation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke from any cause, myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, or major bleeding within 30 days after TAVI.

RESULTS

A total of 858 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population: 431 were assigned to continuation and 427 to interruption of oral anticoagulation. A primary-outcome event occurred in 71 patients (16.5%) in the continuation group and in 63 (14.8%) in the interruption group (risk difference, 1.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.1 to 6.6; P = 0.18 for noninferiority). Thromboembolic events occurred in 38 patients (8.8%) in the continuation group and in 35 (8.2%) in the interruption group (risk difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.1 to 4.4). Bleeding occurred in 134 patients (31.1%) in the continuation group and in 91 (21.3%) in the interruption group (risk difference, 9.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.6).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing TAVI with a concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation, periprocedural continuation was not noninferior to interruption of oral anticoagulation during TAVI with respect to the incidence of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, or major bleeding at 30 days. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and the St. Antonius Research Fund; POPular PAUSE TAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04437303.).

Outcomes among patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction on chronic anticoagulation: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Chronic systemic anticoagulation use is prevalent for various thromboembolic conditions. Anticoagulation (usually through heparin products) is also recommended for the initial management of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

AIMS

To evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of patients with NSTEMI who have been on chronic anticoagulation.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) years 2016-2020, NSTEMI patients and patients with chronic anticoagulation were identified using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 10th version (ICD-10) appropriate codes. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality while the secondary outcomes included major bleeding, ischemic cerebrovascular accident (CVA), early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (i.e., within 24 h of admission), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) during hospitalization, length of stay (LOS), and total charges. Multivariate logistic or linear regression analyses were performed after adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level factors.

RESULTS

Among 2,251,914 adult patients with NSTEMI, 190,540 (8.5%) were on chronic anticoagulation. Chronic anticoagulation use was associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in major bleeding (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.88-1.0, p = 0.15) or ischemic CVA (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.03-1.69, p = 0.15). Chronic anticoagulation use was associated with a lower incidence of early PCI (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.76-0.80, p < 0.001) and CABG (aOR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.41-0.45, p < 0.001). Chronic anticoagulation was also associated with decreased LOS and total charges (adjusted mean difference [aMD]: -0.8 days, 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.75, p < 0.001) and (aMD: $-19,340, 95% CI: -20,692 to -17,988, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients admitted with NSTEMI, chronic anticoagulation use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, LOS, and total charges, with no difference in the incidence of major bleeding.

The bidirectional association between atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and vice versa. This bidirectional association relies on shared risk factors as well as on several direct and indirect mechanisms, including inflammation, atrial ischaemia, left ventricular remodelling, myocardial oxygen supply-demand mismatch and coronary artery embolism, through which one condition can predispose to the other. Patients with both AF and MI are at greater risk of stroke, heart failure and death than patients with only one of the conditions. In this Review, we describe the bidirectional association between AF and MI. We discuss the pathogenic basis of this bidirectional relationship, describe the risk of adverse outcomes when the two conditions coexist, and review current data and guidelines on the prevention and management of both conditions. We also identify important gaps in the literature and propose directions for future research on the bidirectional association between AF and MI. The Review also features a summary of methodological approaches for the study of bidirectional associations in population-based studies.

Antithrombotic Treatment in Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease exhibits growing mortality and morbidity worldwide despite the advances in pharmacotherapy and coronary intervention. Coronary artery disease is classified in the acute coronary syndromes and chronic coronary syndromes according to the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Antithrombotic treatment is the cornerstone of therapy in coronary artery disease due to the involvement of atherothrombosis in the pathophysiology of the disease. Administration of antiplatelet agents, anticoagulants and fibrinolytics reduce ischemic risk, which is amplified early post-acute coronary syndromes or post percutaneous coronary intervention; though, antithrombotic treatment increases the risk for bleeding. The balance between ischemic and bleeding risk is difficult to achieve and is affected by patient characteristics, procedural parameters, concomitant medications and pharmacologic characteristics of the antithrombotic agents. Several pharmacological strategies have been evaluated in patients with coronary artery disease, such as the effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic agents, optimal dual antiplatelet treatment schemes and duration, aspirin de-escalation strategies of dual antiplatelet regimens, dual inhibition pathway strategies as well as triple antithrombotic therapy. Future studies are needed in order to investigate the gaps in our knowledge, including special populations.

Impact of prior oral anticoagulant use and outcomes on patients from secondary analysis in the AUGUSTUS trial

Objective

Managing antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is challenging and can be affected by prior oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. We examined the relationship between prior OAC use and outcomes in the AUGUSTUS trial.

Methods

This prespecified secondary analysis is from AUGUSTUS, an open-label, 2-by-2 factorial, RCT to evaluate the safety of apixaban versus vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and aspirin versus placebo in patients with AF and ACS and/or PCI. The primary endpoint, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding and clinical outcomes were compared in patients receiving (n=2262) or not receiving (n=2352) an OAC prior to enrolment.

Results

Patients with prior OAC use had more comorbidities, higher CHA₂DS₂-VASC and HAS-BLED scores, and were more likely enrolled following elective PCI. There was no difference in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding with or without prior OAC (30 days: 5.1% vs 5.9% (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06); 180 days: 13.5% vs 13.5% (aHR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16)). Patients with prior OAC use had a lower risk of death or ischaemic events (30 days: 1.7% vs 2.8% (aHR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92); 180 days: 5.4% vs 7.6% (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88)). No interactions between randomised treatment (apixaban vs VKA, aspirin vs placebo) and prior OAC status were observed for outcomes, apart from apixaban (vs VKA) being associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction with prior OAC use (180 days: 2.0% vs 3.7% (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91().

Conclusions

In AUGUSTUS, prior OAC use was associated with fewer ischaemic events but not more bleeding. In patients with AF and ACS and/or undergoing PCI, clinicians can be assured that the trial results can be applied to patients regardless of their prior OAC status.

Trial registration number

NCT02415400.

Is percutaneous coronary intervention safe during uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndromes?

Objectives

No data on optimal management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) on long-term direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are available. Using the data of the Management of Antithrombotic TherApy in Patients with Chronic or DevelOping AtRial Fibrillation During Hospitalization for PCI study, we sought to compare the outcome of patients with ACS and atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent PCI during uninterrupted DOAC (UDOAC group) and those who interrupted DOAC before PCI (IDOAC group).

Methods

The primary outcomes of our analysis were the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, recurrent myocardial infarction or revascularisation and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including major bleeding, at 6 months.

Results

Among the 132 patients on long-term DOAC, 72 (54.6%) underwent PCI during UDOAC and 60 (45.4%) after IDOAC. The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.8±1.7 and 3.9±1.3 (p=0.89), while the HAS-BLED score was 2.5±1.0 and 2.5±0.9 (p=0.96), in UDOAC and IDOAC groups, respectively. The median time from hospital admission to PCI was 9.5 (IQR: 2.0–31.5) hours in UDOAC and 45.5 (IQR: 22-5–92.0) hours in IDOAC group (p<0.0001). A radial approach was used in 92%, and a drug-eluting stent was implanted in 98% of patients. At 6 months, the rates of MACE (13.9% vs 16.7%) and NACE (20.8% vs 21.7%) did not differ between UDOAC and IDOAC groups. At multivariable analysis, increasing CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (HR: 1.39; 95% CIs 1.05 to 1.83; p=0.02) resulted as the only independent predictor of NACE.

Conclusions

Our study shows that PCI is a safe procedure during UDOAC in patients with concomitant ACS and AF.

Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare interrupted and uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy (I-OAC vs. U-OAC) in patients on OAC undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal peri-procedural management of OAC-treated patients.

METHODS

In the SWEDEHEART registry, all patients on OAC who were admitted acutely and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography with a diagnostic procedure, from 2005 to 2017, were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeds at 120 days. Propensity score was used to adjust for the nonrandomized treatment selection.

RESULTS

The study included 6,485 patients: 3,322 in the I-OAC group and 3,163 in the U-OAC group. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was 8.2% (269 events) versus 8.2% (254 events) in the I-OAC and the U-OAC groups, respectively. The adjusted risk for MACCE did not differ between the groups (I-OAC vs. U-OAC hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.12). Similarly, no difference was found in the risk for MACCE or bleeds (12.6% vs. 12.9%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.07). The risk for major or minor in-hospital bleeds did not differ between the groups. However, U-OAC was associated with a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization: 4 (3 to 7) days versus 5 (3 to 8) days; p < 0.01.

CONCLUSIONS

I-OAC and U-OAC were associated with equivalent risk for MACCE and bleeding complications. An U-OAC strategy was associated with shorter length of hospitalization. These data support U-OAC as the preferable strategy in patients on OAC undergoing coronary intervention.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation are both common and can occur in the same patient. Combination therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulation increases risk of bleeding. Where the two conditions coexist, careful consideration is needed to determine the optimal antithrombotic treatment to reduce the risks of future ischaemic events associated with both conditions. Choices can be made in intraprocedural anticoagulation, type and dosing of oral anticoagulant, duration of combination therapy, and selection of P2Y12 inhibitor including genetic testing. This review article provides an overview of the available evidence to support clinicians in finding the delicate balance between antithrombotic efficacy and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

Combination of Oral Anticoagulants and Single Antiplatelets versus Triple Therapy in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome: Stroke Prevention among Asians

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent arrhythmic disease, tends to foster thrombus formation due to hemodynamic disturbances, leading to severe disabling and even fatal thromboembolic diseases. Meanwhile, patients with AF may also present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring stenting, which creates a clinical dilemma considering that majority of such patients will likely receive oral anticoagulants (OACs) for stroke prevention and require additional double antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) to reduce recurrent cardiac events and in-stent thrombosis. In such cases, the gentle balance between bleeding risk and atherothromboembolic events needs to be carefully considered. Studies have shown that congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years (doubled), diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA; doubled)-vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category (female; CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc) scores outperform other scoring systems in Asian populations and that the hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function (1 point each), stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio (INR), elderly (>65 years), drugs/alcohol concomitantly (1 point each; HAS-BLED) score, a simple clinical score that predicts bleeding risk in patients with AF, particularly among Asians, performs better than other bleeding scores. A high HAS-BLED score should not be used to rule out OAC treatment but should instead prompt clinicians to address correctable risk factors. Therefore, the current review attempted to analyze available data from patients with nonvalvular AF who underwent stenting for ACS or CAD and elaborate on the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and antiplatelet management among such patients. For majority of the patients, "triple therapy" comprising OAC, aspirin, and clopidogrel should be considered for 1 to 6 months following ACS. However, the optimal duration for "triple therapy" would depend on the patient's ischemic and bleeding risks, with DOACs being obviously safer than vitamin-K antagonists.

[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.

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Periprocedural heparin bridging therapy aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients requiring an interruption in their anticoagulation therapy for the purpose of an elective procedure. The efficacy and safety of heparin bridging therapy has not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To compare through meta-analysis the effects of heparin bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events of clinical significance among patients taking oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant for operations. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, were finally included in this analysis. Among all the 35,944 patients, 10,313 patients were assigned as heparin bridging group, and the other 25,631 patients were non-heparin bridging group. Overall, compared with patients without bridging therapy, heparin bridging therapy increased the risk of major bleeding (OR = 3.23, 95%CI: 2.06-5.05), minor bleeding (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.06-2.18) and overall bleeding (OR = 2.83, 95%CI: 1.86-4.30).While there was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR = 0.99,95%CI: 0.49-2.00), stroke or transient ischemic attack(OR = 1.45, 95%CI: 0.93-2.26,) or all-cause mortality (OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.31-1.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Heparin-bridging therapy increased the risk of major and minor bleeding without decreasing the risk of thromboembolic events and all cause death compared to non-heparin bridging.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective-2016 Update

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation is an emerging clinical problem. Currently, there is limited evidenced-based data on the optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, for these high-risk patients with practice guidelines, thus, providing limited recommendations. Over the past years, expert consensus documents have provided guidance to clinicians on how to manage patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Given the recent advancements in the field, the current document provides an updated opinion of selected North American experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In particular, this document provides the current views on (1) embolic/stroke risk, (2) ischemic/thrombotic cardiac risk, and (3) bleeding risk, which are pivotal for discerning the choice of antithrombotic therapy. In addition, we describe the recent advances in pharmacology, stent designs, and clinical trials relevant to the field. Ultimately, we provide expert consensus-derived recommendations, using a pragmatic approach, on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Antithrombotic management in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention requiring oral anticoagulation

The dynamic evolution of therapeutic options including the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC), more potent antiplatelet drugs as well as new generation drug-eluting stents could lead to the view that the current recommendations on the management of patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring oral anticoagulation do not keep up with the results of several clinical studies published within the last 5 years. In the present overview, we summarize the recent advances in antithrombotic management used in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor taken with oral anticoagulants also remain to be established in randomized trials; therefore the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor clopidogrel on top of aspirin or without is now recommended to be used together with a VKA or NOAC. It is still unclear which dose of a NOAC in combination with antiplatelet agents and different stents should be used in this clinical setting and whether indeed NOAC are safer compared with VKA in such cardiovascular patients. Moreover, we discuss the use of anticoagulation in addition to antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in patients with ACS. To minimize bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients following PCI or ACS, the right agent should be prescribed to the right patient at the right dose and supported by regular clinical evaluation and laboratory testing, especially assessment of renal function when a NOAC is used.

Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Coronary Stenting

Stroke prevention is the main priority in the management cascade of atrial fibrillation. Most patients require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and may require percutaneous coronary intervention. Prevention of recurrent cardiac ischemia and stent thrombosis necessitate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for up to 12 months. Triple antithrombotic therapy with OAC plus DAPT of shortest feasible duration is warranted, followed by dual antithrombotic therapy of OAC and antiplatelet agent, and OAC alone after 12 months. Because of elevated risk of hemorrhagic complications, new-generation drug-eluting stents, lower-intensity OAC, radial access, and routine use of gastric protection with proton pump inhibitors are recommended.

Management of the patient with an acute coronary syndrome using oral anticoagulation

A significant number of patients with atrial fibrillation, treated with oral anticoagulants, present with an acute coronary syndrome. Many of these patients have an indication for coronary angiography. The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and the novel P2Y12 inhibitors has generated new uncertainty about the optimal treatment regimen, whether triple or dual therapy should be given and which is the most beneficial P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel). In this article, we will summarise the practical advice on the management of acute coronary syndrome patients requiring oral anticoagulants following the recent consensus document of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis in association with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and ESC guidelines.

Post-PCI Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Requiring Long-Term Anticoagulation

The number of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and additionally require chronic anticoagulation for a variety of indications is not insignificant. The choice of antithrombotic therapy after PCI in patients with chronic indications for anticoagulation therapy remains a challenge for interventional cardiologists, as the risk of bleeding must be adequately weighed against the benefit of preventing future ischemic events. While these clinical scenarios are encountered in approximately 10 % of patients undergoing PCI, current practice guidelines do not sufficiently guide physicians as to how to best treat these PCI patients requiring chronic anticoagulation. Notwithstanding the clinical difficulties of treating such patients, there are several recent studies and analyses that have assessed optimal antithrombotic strategies in the PCI population, and there are several others that are currently underway. This review evaluates the currently available data and clinical scenarios commonly encountered by treating physicians.

Pharmacotherapy in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: evolution and recent developments

Many recent innovations have been made in developing new antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs in the last few years, with a total of nine new antithrombotic drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration after the year 2000. This has revolutionized the medical therapy given to manage acute coronary syndrome and support cardiac catheterization. The concept of dual antiplatelet therapy has been emphasized, and clopidogrel has emerged as the most-popular second antiplatelet drug after aspirin. Newer P2Y12 inhibitors like prasugrel and ticagrelor have been extensively studied and compared to clopidogrel. The role of glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitors is being redefined. Other alternatives to unfractionated heparin have become available, of which enoxaparin and bivalirudin have been studied the most. Apart from these, many more drugs with novel therapeutic targets are being studied and are currently under development. In this review, current evidence on these drugs is presented and analyzed in a way that would facilitate decision making for the clinician. For this analysis, various high-impact clinical trials, pharmacological studies, meta-analyses, and reviews were accessed through the MEDLINE database. Adopting a unique interdisciplinary approach, an attempt has been made to integrate pharmacological and clinical evidence to better understand and appreciate the pros and cons of each of these classes of drugs.

The optimal management of patients on oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary artery stenting. The 10th Anniversary Overview

Even 10 years after the first appearance in the literature of articles reporting on the management of patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent (PCI-S), this issue is still controversial. Nonetheless, some guidance for the everyday management of this patient subset, accounting for about 5-8 % of all patients referred for PCI-S, has been developed. In general, a period of triple therapy (TT) of OAC, with either vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) or non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC), aspirin, and clopidogrel is warranted, followed by the combination of OAC, and a single antiplatelet agent for up to 12 months, and then OAC alone. The duration of the initial period of TT is dependent on the individual risk of thromboembolism, and bleeding, as well as the clinical context in which PCI-S is performed (elective vs acute coronary syndrome), and the type of stent implanted (bare-metal vs drug-eluting). In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive, at-a-glance, overview of the management strategies, which are currently suggested for the peri-procedural, medium-term, and long-term periods following PCI-S in OAC patients. While acknowledging that most of the evidence has been obtained from patients on OAC because of atrial fibrillation, and with warfarin being the most frequently used VKA, we refer in this overview to the whole population of OAC patients undergoing PCI-S. We refer to the whole population of patients on OAC undergoing PCI-S also when OAC is carried out with NOAC rather than VKA, pointing out, when appropriate, the particular management issues.