scholarly journals Double Antithrombotic versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (02) ◽  
pp. 081-087
Author(s):  
Surya Dharma
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Thromboembolic Complications ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

AbstractIn atrial fibrillation (AF), oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy with either vitamin K antagonist or non–vitamin K antagonist is used to prevent thromboembolic complications. In patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and were treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor reduces major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and stent thrombosis. Consequently, in patients with AF who presented with ACS and were treated by PCI, the combination of OAC and DAPT, the so-called triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) is needed to improve the outcome of the patients. However, the use of TAT increases the risk of bleeding. Several randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis evaluated the use of TAT and double antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in this population, and DAT is defined as patients who receive combination of one antiplatelet and OAC. In general, the studies demonstrated a reduction in bleeding event in patients who received DAT as compared with TAT, with similar incidence of thromboembolic complications and MACE. To date, there is no established consensus or guideline for the most appropriate combination of antithrombotic agents in patients with AF and ACS who undergo PCI. Tailoring the treatment for each individual is likely the best approach to determine the balance of bleeding risk and ischemic events before starting antithrombotic therapy. Future trials with adequate sample size are needed to find the most appropriate combination of antiplatelet and OAC in patients with AF who presented with ACS and treated by PCI.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy outcomes of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Gargiulo ◽  
Andreas Goette ◽  
Jan Tijssen ◽  
Lars Eckardt ◽  
Thorsten Lewalter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Abstract Aims To investigate the safety and efficacy of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome or who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials comparing DAT vs. TAT in AF patients undergoing PCI. Four trials encompassing 10 234 patients (DAT = 5496 vs. TAT = 4738) were included. The primary safety endpoint (ISTH major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) was significantly lower with DAT compared with TAT [risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56–0.78; P < 0.0001; I2 = 69%], which was consistent across all available bleeding definitions. This benefit was counterbalanced by a significant increase of stent thrombosis (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.01–2.50; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) and a trend towards higher risk of myocardial infarction with DAT. There were no significant differences in all-cause and cardiovascular death, stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events. The comparison of NOAC-based DAT vs. vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-TAT yielded consistent results and a significant reduction of intracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17–0.65; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Double antithrombotic therapy, particularly if consisting of a NOAC instead of VKA and a P2Y12 inhibitor, is associated with a reduction of bleeding, including major and intracranial haemorrhages. This benefit is however counterbalanced by a higher risk of cardiac—mainly stent-related—but not cerebrovascular ischaemic occurrences.

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a collaborative meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Gargiulo ◽  
Christopher P Cannon ◽  
Charles Michael Gibson ◽  
Andreas Goette ◽  
Renato D Lopes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Abstract Aims Safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may differ based on clinical presentation. We sought to compare double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in AF patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials. Data on subgroups of ACS or elective PCI were obtained by published reports or trial investigators. A total of 10 193 patients from four NOAC trials were analysed, of whom 5675 presenting with ACS (DAT = 3063 vs. TAT = 2612) and 4518 with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD; DAT = 2421 vs. TAT = 2097). The primary safety endpoint of ISTH major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding was reduced with DAT compared with TAT in both ACS (12.2% vs. 19.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.71; P &lt; 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and SCAD (14.6% vs. 22.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55–0.85; P = 0.0008; I2 = 66%), without interaction (P-int = 0.54). Findings were consistent for secondary bleeding endpoints, including intra-cranial haemorrhage. In both subgroups, there was no difference between DAT and TAT for all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or stroke. Myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were numerically higher with DAT vs. TAT consistently in ACS and SCAD (P-int = 0.60 and 0.86, respectively). Findings were confirmed by multiple sensitivity analyses, including a separate analysis on dabigatran regimens and a restriction to PCI population. Conclusions DAT, compared with TAT, is associated with lower bleeding risks, including intra-cranial haemorrhage, and a small non-significant excess of cardiac ischaemic events in both patients with or without ACS.

Efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants as part of triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome. Data from an observational study

Kardiologiia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (7) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
N. A. Sycheva ◽  
L. Yu. Koroleva ◽  
V. P. Nosov ◽  
G. V. Kovaleva ◽  
N. N. Paikova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Warfarin Treatment ◽  
Ischemic Events ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Aim To study efficacy and safety of a triple antithrombotic therapy with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation after acute coronary syndrome, for 12 months following discharge from the hospital.Materials and methods This single-site cohort, prospective, observational study performed at the Regional Vascular Center 2 of the N.A. Semashko Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Clinical Hospital included 402 patients. It was possible to maintain contacts with 206 patients for 12 months. These patients were divided into two groups, the DOAC treatment (n=105) and the warfarin treatment (n=101) as a part of triple antithrombotic therapy upon discharge. Clinical observation was performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the discharge by structured telephone interview. Predetermined efficacy endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke. Safety endpoints included bleeding defined as small, medium (clinically significant), and major in accordance with the TIMI classification.Results At 12 months of follow-up, 80 patients (76.19%) continued taking DOAC and 39 patients (38.61%, p<0.001) continued taking warfarin; in this process, only 25 patients (24.75%) monitored their INR on a regular basis. With a regular INR monitoring and TTR >70%, death rate did not differ in the warfarin and the DOAC treatment groups. However, there was a difference in reaching the composite efficacy endpoint (p=0.048): ischemic events occurred statistically significantly more frequently in the warfarin treatment group than in the DOAC treatment group.Conclusions In 12 months after discharge from the hospital, compliance with the DOAC treatment as a part of the antithrombotic therapy was significantly higher than compliance with the warfarin treatment. The triple antithrombotic therapy with DOAC was safer than the warfarin treatment by the number of hemorrhagic complications and more effective in prevention of ischemic events, primarily due to no need for monitoring of lab test values.

scholarly journals Antithrombotic management of patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary stenting: a prospective, observational, nationwide study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e041044
Author(s):  
Leonardo De Luca ◽  
Andrea Rubboli ◽  
Leonardo Bolognese ◽  
Lucio Gonzini ◽  
Stefano Urbinati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Coronary Stenting ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Pharmacological Management ◽  
Nationwide Study ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to assess current management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing coronary stenting.DesignNon-interventional, prospective, nationwide study.Setting76 private or public cardiology centres in Italy.ParticipantsPatients with ACS with concomitant AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Primary and secondary outcome measuresTo obtain accurate and up-to-date information on pharmacological management of patients with AF admitted for an ACS and undergoing PCI with stent implantation.ResultsOver a 12-month period, 598 consecutive patients were enrolled: 48.8% with AF at hospital admission and 51.2% developing AF during hospitalisation. At discharge, a triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) was prescribed in 64.8%, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in 25.7% and dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in 8.8% of patients. Among patients with AF at admission, TAT and DAT were more frequently prescribed compared with patients with new-onset AF (76.3% vs 53.8% and 12.5% vs 5.3%, respectively; both p<0.0001), while a DAPT was less often used (11.2% vs 39.5%; p<0.0001). At multivariable analysis, a major bleeding event (OR: 5.40; 95% CI: 2.42 to 12.05; p<0.0001) and malignancy (OR: 5.11; 95% CI: 1.77 to 14.78; p=0.003) resulted the most important independent predictors of DAT prescription.ConclusionsIn this contemporary registry of patients with ACS with AF treated with coronary stents, TAT still resulted as the antithrombotic strategy of choice, DAT was reserved for high bleeding risk and DAPT was mainly prescribed in those developing AF during hospitalisation.Trial registration numberNCT03656523.

scholarly journals Stroke prevention for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: how to make the right choice of directly acting oral anticoagulants?

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-102
Author(s):  
N. N. Kryukov ◽  
E. V. Sayutina ◽  
A. M. Osadchuk ◽  
M. A. Osadchuk
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Stroke Risk Factor ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

Patients with atrial fibrillation have a high risk of developing stroke and death, which requires constant anticoagulant support. In this regard, the physician faces the difficult task of selecting the appropriate oral anticoagulant for patient with individual risk factors and comorbidities. Currently, three non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants or directly acting oral anticoagulants have been registered in the Russia, which in large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were compared with warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism. The present article analyzes the data of RCTs, postmarketing studies of oral anticoagulants, and presents groups of patients for whom these drugs are preferred. The choice of oral anticoagulants for the prevention of stroke in the following subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation is discussed: patients with one stroke risk factor (CHA2DS2VASc1 in men or 2 in women), patients of different age groups, patients with concomitant coronary artery disease/acute coronary syndrome, a history of stroke, patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and a group of patients with concomitant arterial hypertension and chronic heart failure. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants or directly acting oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

P4786Dual antithrombotic therapy is similarly effective to triple therapy in preventing thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Z Motovska ◽  
H Melicharova ◽  
J Knot ◽  
J Dusek ◽  
S S Simek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
One Year ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Abstract Background Antithrombotic therapy is effective in preventing ischemic and thromboembolic events, however it simultaneously increases the risk of bleeding. The efforts thus focus on balancing the intensity of combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy. Purpose The study aimed to compare efficacy and safety of single (aspirin/clopidogrel) or dual (aspirin plus clopidogrel) antiplatelet therapy in combination with an oral anticoagulant in non-selected patient population with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods The analysis used data from National Registry of Reimbursed Health Services (NRRHS), which contains data of the entirety of health care paid from the public health insurance (almost 100% of healthcare in the Czech Republic) combined with the database of death records. Occurrence of an ACS, stroke, and bleeding requiring hospitalization within one year was compared in patients discharged on dual and triple antithrombotic therapy. Dual antithrombotic therapy consists of aspirin/clopidogrel plus an oral anticoagulant. Triple antithrombotic therapy was defined as combination of aspirin, clopidogrel and an oral anticoagulant. Results Over a four-year period (2012–2016) 104 000 patients with an ACS were hospitalized in the Czech Republic. AFib (any types) was reported in 12.4% (N=12 891) of them (21.2% in patients 75+ years old). +AFib (vs. −AFib) patients were a higher risk population with respect to the comorbidity (diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, stroke, heart failure) (p<0.05 for all comorbidities). Oral anticoagulant therapy was indicated in 25.3% of them. PCI was performed in 57.7% (−AFib) and 43.4% (+AFib) patients, respectively. Hospital mortality was significantly higher in +AFib patients (8.6% and 5.6%, OR (95% CI): 1.585 (1.481; 1.696), p<0.001). We identified 1017 patients discharged on dual and 967 patients on triple antithrombotic therapy. Risk of recurrent ACS within one year with dual therapy was comparable to that with triple therapy (OR (95% CI): 1.219 (0.766; 1.940), p=0.403). The same was also observed for the risk of stroke (1.273 (0.648; 2.501), p=0.483). After six months, persistence on dual antithrombotic therapy (33.4% patients) was higher than on triple therapy (10.3%, p<0.001). Within the first three months, de-escalation from triple antithrombotic therapy to dual antithrombotic therapy (in 212 patients) was accompanied by a significant increase of bleeding requiring hospitalization (0% on dual vs. 3.3% on triple therapy, p=0.048). Conclusion Protective effect of dual antithrombotic therapy on the occurence of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular event is comparable to that of the triple antithrombotic therapy in non-selected patients with an acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation. Moreover, long-term persistence on triple therapy is significantly lower due to bleeding risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document