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.

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 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 Temporal Trends of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Atrial Fibrillation: Insight From the KAMIR-NIH Registry

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oh-Hyun Lee ◽  
Yongcheol Kim ◽  
Deok-Kyu Cho ◽  
Jung-Sun Kim ◽  
Byeong-Keuk Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Stent Implantation ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

Background: Triple therapy is the combination of dual antiplatelet therapy plus oral anticoagulant after stent implantation. Current guidelines recommend triple therapy for acute coronary syndrome with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to identify temporal trends of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and AF.Methods: Among 13,104 consecutive patients from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH) registry, we identified 453 patients with AF after stent implantation for AMI; these patients were then divided into those who did and did not use oral anticoagulant (OAC) [OAC group (n = 71) vs. non-OAC group (n = 382), respectively].Results: The results showed that the prevalence of AF in AMI patients was 5.4% (712/13,104). Among 453 patients, only 15.7% (71/453) were treated with OAC while dual or single antiplatelet therapy was provided for 84.7% (382/453) of patients. In patients with high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2), OACs were used only in 17% (69/406). Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex [odds ratio (OR) 2.11; 95% CI: 1.17–3.79], diabetes mellitus (DM) (OR 2.37; 95% CI: 1.35–4.17), prior cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (OR 4.19; 95% CI: 2–8.75), and congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR 1.89; 95% CI: 1.09–3.3) as the significant determinants of OAC use.Conclusion: The study concluded that OAC was underused. Approximately, 15%, of AMI patients with AF undergoing PCI with stent and female gender, DM, prior CVA history, and a history of CHF or the presence of moderate to severe left ventricle systolic impairment were significant determinants of OAC use.

scholarly journals Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation – Balancing Risks and Benefits

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Alexandru DEACONU ◽  
◽  
Silvia DEACONU ◽  
Andreea GATEJ ◽  
Maria DOROBANTU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Antithrombotic Treatment ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Constant Change ◽  
Esc Guidelines ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF who undergo coronary stenting for an ACS has been a subject of constant change, with the addition of numerous trials in recent years. Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess current antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF and ACS treated with PCI. Material and methods: We performed a observational retrospective study on patients with nonvalvular AF, ACS and PCI between January 2017 and May 2019. We assessed both ischemic risk (IR) and haemorrhagic risk (HR) according to the 2018 ESC guidelines strategies. Results: 184 patients with nonvalvular AF and ACS treated with PCI were eligible for inclusion. In the whole cohort the HR was significantly higher than the IR (3.66+/-1.15 respectively 2.84+/-1.15, p < 0.001). NSTEMI carries both the highest IR and HR (p<0.05). The majority of patients (88.04%) received triple antithrombotic therapy mostly for one month (39%). Main drug combination used was Aspirin, Clopidogrel, antivitamin K (48.48%). Conclusions: In our registry of AF patients with ACS treated with PCI, triple antithrombotic therapy is still the strategy of choice with an initial duration of one month. In our cohort, HR is higher than IR, NSTEMI carrying the highest risks out of all the ACS.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (02) ◽  
pp. 088-097
Author(s):  
Anwar Santoso ◽  
Sunu B. Raharjo
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Thrombus Formation ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonists ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

AbstractAtrial 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; CHA2DS2-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.

Intracranial haemorrhages vs. stent thromboses with direct oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet agent or triple antithrombotic therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention/acute coronary syndrome patients

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 538-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattia Galli ◽  
Felicita Andreotti ◽  
Italo Porto ◽  
Filippo Crea
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Thrombosis Risk ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Abstract Aims  To assess the efficacy-safety profile of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) including direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Randomized trials of AF patients with ACS/PCI, comparing DAT using DOACs against TAT, were selected. Overall, 11 161 studies were screened, 458 trials assessed, and four included, comprising 10 234 patients followed for a mean of 11 months. DAT compared to TAT resulted in significant reductions of trial-defined primary safety outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.79, number needed to treat (NNT) 17] and of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41–0.70, NNT 76) and in a numerical reduction of intracranial haemorrhage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21–1.19, NNT 314), which became significant after exclusion of DOACs from TAT and vitamin K antagonist from DAT arms (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15–0.64). There were no significant differences in the risks of cardiovascular or any deaths or stroke, but with DAT, there was a numerical increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.99–1.54, estimated NNT for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 151), which became significant in the ACS/PCI subgroup (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02–2.00), and a 60% significant increase in stent thrombosis risk (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02–2.52; NNTH 274). Conclusion  Dual antithrombotic therapy, compared to TAT, conferred a significantly reduced risk of overall bleeding but with a significant increase of stent thrombosis risk in the overall population and a significant 43% increase of MI in the ACS/PCI subgroup.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document