scholarly journals Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominick J. Angiolillo ◽  
Shaun G. Goodman ◽  
Deepak L. Bhatt ◽  
John W. Eikelboom ◽  
Matthew J. Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Antithrombotic Management

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation represents a challenge in clinical practice. In 2016, an updated opinion of selected experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was reported. After the 2016 North American consensus statement on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, results of pivotal clinical trials assessing the type of oral anticoagulant agent and the duration of antiplatelet treatment have been published. On the basis of these results, this focused update on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommends that a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant be preferred over a vitamin K antagonist as the oral anticoagulant of choice. Moreover, a double-therapy regimen (oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y 12 inhibitor) by the time of hospital discharge should be considered for most patients, whereas extending the use of aspirin beyond hospital discharge (ie, triple therapy) should be considered only for selected patients at high ischemic/thrombotic and low bleeding risks and for a limited period of time. The present document provides a focused updated on the rationale for the new expert consensus–derived recommendations on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

scholarly journals Atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: dual or triple antithrombotic therapy with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_I) ◽  
pp. I22-I31
Author(s):  
Andreas Goette ◽  
Pascal Vranckx
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
The Impact

Abstract About 20% of all atrial fibrillation (AF) patients develop coronary artery disease, which requires coronary stenting [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)]. Thus, this subcohort of AF patients may require aggressive antithrombotic therapy encompassing vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) plus aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. At present, four clinical Phase IIIb trials using dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban, were published. These studies assessed the impact of NOACs as a part of DAT therapy vs. triple therapy. Compared with triple therapy, NOAC-based DAT has been shown to be associated with reduced major bleeding as well as intracranial haemorrhages. The benefit, however, is somewhat counterbalanced by a higher risk of stent-related ischaemia during the early phase of dual therapy. Thus, triple therapy after stenting is appropriate for at least 14 days with a maximum of 30 days. Thereafter, DAT including a NOAC is the therapy of choice in AF PCI patients to reduce the risk of bleeding during a 1 year of follow-up compared to VKA-based regimes. The present review summarizes the published study results and demonstrates differences in trial design and reported outcomes.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 143 (6) ◽  
pp. 583-596
Author(s):  
Dominick J. Angiolillo ◽  
Deepak L. Bhatt ◽  
Christopher P. Cannon ◽  
John W. Eikelboom ◽  
C. Michael Gibson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y 12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

scholarly journals Antithrombotic Management for Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or With Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Evidence-Based Update

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shujuan Zhao ◽  
Xuejiao Hong ◽  
Haixia Cai ◽  
Mingzhou Liu ◽  
Bing Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
P2y12 Inhibitor ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Antithrombotic Management

Combined antithrombotic regimens for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with coronary artery disease, particularly for those who have acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), presents a great challenge in the real-world clinical scenario. Conventionally, a triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), which consists of combined oral anticoagulant therapy to prevent systemic embolism or stroke along with dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent coronary arterial thrombosis (CAT), is used. However, TAT has been associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding. With the emergence of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), randomized controlled trials have demonstrated a better risk-to-benefit ratio of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in combination of a NOAC and with a P2Y12 inhibitor than vitamin K antagonist-based TAT. The results of these studies have impacted the recommendations of current international guidelines, which favor a DAT with a NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitor (especially clopidogrel) in this clinical setting. Additionally, aspirin can be administered during the periprocedural period, while the treatment duration of TAT should be as short as possible. In this article, we summarize the up-to-date evidence regarding antithrombotic regimens for AF patients with PCI or ACS, with a specific focus on the optimal approach and critical discussions of key scientific data and future developments for antithrombotic management in these patients.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Double Antithrombotic Therapy With Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Capodanno ◽  
Marco Di Maio ◽  
Antonio Greco ◽  
Deepak L. Bhatt ◽  
C. Michael Gibson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiac Events ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Adverse Cardiac Events ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background The optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is a topic of debate. We aimed at defining the efficacy and safety of double antithrombotic therapy with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) against triple antithrombotic therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) added to a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), illustrating the pooled cumulative distribution of events, the ranking of different NOACs tested in NOAC+SAPT combination strategies, and the state of the current evidence in the field. Methods and Results Randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of trial‐defined major adverse cardiac events. The primary safety end point was clinically significant bleeding. Secondary end points were the components of primary end points. Trial‐level pairwise and Bayesian network meta‐analyses, reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analyses, and trial sequential analysis were performed. Four randomized controlled trials (10 969 patients) were included. No differences were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94–1.22), and the NOAC+SAPT strategy showed a lower rate of clinically significant bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39–0.80). These results were consistent in reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analyses. In the Bayesian network meta‐analysis, different NOACs displayed diverse risk–benefit profiles. Trial sequential analyses suggest that the evidence for the similarity in major adverse cardiac events compared with VKA + DAPT and the bleeding risk reduction observed with NOAC+SAPT is likely to be conclusive. Conclusions NOAC+SAPT does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events and reduces the risk of bleeding compared with VKA + DAPT in AF patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Various NOACs may have different risk–benefit profiles in combination strategies. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42020151089.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document