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.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01664-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How cardiologists manage antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary stenting: the WOEST survey 2018

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic treatment choices are complicated when patients have both atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome and/or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this study, we aimed to gain insight into antithrombotic management strategies in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

We invited interventional cardiologists to complete the WOEST (What is the Optimal antiplatElet & Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Oral Anticoagulation and Coronary StenTing) survey 2018. In this questionnaire, we presented a patient with a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and an elective PCI case.

RESULTS

The results were based on 118 completed questionnaires (response rate 69.4%). In the case of the AF patient with NSTEMI, most cardiologists indicated they would initiate dual antiplatelet therapy (acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel) and continue non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy at admission and during coronary angiography/PCI. At discharge, 70.3% would prescribe triple antithrombotic therapy (oral anticoagulation, acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel), mostly for 1 month. One year after NSTEMI, 83.1% would cancel the antiplatelet therapy and prescribe NOAC monotherapy. For the AF patient undergoing elective PCI, 51.7% would start dual antiplatelet therapy prior to the procedure and 52.5% would discontinue NOAC therapy prior to the PCI. At discharge, 55.1% would start triple antithrombotic therapy. Furthermore, 25.4% responded they routinely prescribe a reduced dose of NOAC after discharge. One year after PCI, 89.0% would continue NOAC monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The WOEST survey demonstrated heterogeneity in antithrombotic management strategies among interventional cardiologists. This observed variety mirrors the heterogeneity of the many guidelines and consensus documents. Further research is needed to guide patient-tailored medicine for AF patients undergoing PCI.

First report of a comparative patient-oriented perspective on the use of non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants or vitamin-K antagonists in atrial fibrillation: patients' experiences, side-effects and practical problems leading to non-adherence

Background

Non-vitamin‑K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are recommended as the first-choice therapy for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the lack of monitoring may impact patients’ adherence, and non-adherence to medication is a potential hazard to safe and efficacious use. This is the first report with a ‘comparative patient-oriented perspective’ regarding the use of anticoagulant medication in the NOACs era. Our aim was to compare patients’ self-reported practical problems, adverse events and non-adherence to anticoagulation therapy.

Methods

A survey was conducted among patients with AF on either NOACs or vitamin‑K antagonists (VKAs). The outcomes were self-reported non-adherence to anticoagulant medication, and patients’ experiences, adverse events and practical problems correlated with the intake of the drug itself.

Results

A total of 765 patients filled out the questionnaire, of which 389 (50.9%) were on VKAs and 376 (49.1%) on NOACs. Age (70.6 ± 8.8 vs 70.3 ± 9.1 years) and male gender (70.4% vs 64.6%) were similar in the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of VKA users than NOAC users reported having frequent (16.2% vs 3.7%, p > 0.001) or occasional (4.1% vs 1.3%, p > 0.001) practical issues with medication intake. Self-reported non-adherence was significantly higher (24.4% vs 18.1%, p = 0.03) among VKA users. The incidence of self-reported adverse events was similar.

Conclusion

Patient experiences support the current guideline recommendations for NOACs as the first-choice therapy: NOAC therapy resulted in a higher practical feasibility and better adherence when compared with VKA therapy, with a similar incidence of adverse events in both groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-019-01331-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.