Dataset Information

A systematic review of randomized trials comparing double versus triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prior randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the optimal antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been powered to evaluate ischemic outcomes. We compared double therapy with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and a P2Y12 inhibitor to triple therapy with an OAC + dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with AF requiring PCI.

Methods

Using PRISMA guidelines, we searched for RCTs including patients with AF as an indication for OAC and undergoing PCI or medical management of acute coronary syndrome. The results were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate the overall effect of double therapy versus triple therapy on ischemic and bleeding outcomes.

Results

We identified four RCTs, comprising 10,238 patients (5,498 double therapy, 4,740 triple therapy). Trial-reported major adverse cardiovascular events were similar between double therapy and triple therapy (fixed effect model OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94-1.26). However, stent thrombosis (61/5,496 double therapy vs. 33/4738 triple therapy; fixed effect model OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02-2.40; number needed to treat with triple therapy = 242) favored triple therapy. Bleeding outcomes were less frequent with double therapy (746/5470 vs. 950/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53-0.65; number needed to harm with triple therapy = 16), but with significant heterogeneity (Q = 8.33, p = .04; I² = 64%), as were intracranial hemorrhages (19/5470 vs. 30/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96).

Conclusions

Double therapy in patients with AF requiring OAC following PCI or Acute coronary syndrome has a significantly better safety profile than triple therapy but may be associated with a modest increased risk of stent thrombosis.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7211549 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveMost Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) receive only dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) without oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists [VKA] or non-VKA oral anticoagulants [NOAC]). However, it has not been fully investigated whether the DAPT results in better clinical outcomes in the early period after PCI than the standard triple therapy with VKA or NOAC.MethodsWe analyzed the claims records of 11,039 Korean AF population who had PCI between 2013 and 2018. Patients were categorized according to the post-PCI antithrombotic therapy as VKA-based triple therapy (VKA-TT), NOAC-based triple therapy (NOAC-TT), and DAPT groups. After baseline adjustment using inverse probability weighting, we compared the risks of ischemic endpoints (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality) and major bleeding at 3 months post-PCI.ResultsIschemic stroke, MI, and all-cause mortality occurred in 105, 423, and 379 patients, respectively, and 138 patients experienced major bleeding. The DAPT group was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke and major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.84) compared to the VKA-TT group, despite no significant differences in the risks of MI and all-cause mortality. In contrast, the DAPT group demonstrated no significant difference in the risks for ischemic endpoints compared to the NOAC-TT group. Additionally, the DAPT group had a numerically lower risk of major bleeding than the NOAC-TT group but this was not statistically significant (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45-1.07).ConclusionsAn outcome benefit of DAPT was observed in the early period after PCI compared to the VKA-TT, but not against NOAC-TT users among the Asian AF population. Given the potential long-term benefits of NOACs, greater efforts should be made to increase compliance in clinical practice with proper combination therapy with NOAC after PCI.

Project description:ImportanceAntithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) presents a balancing act with regard to bleeding and ischemic risks.ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4 antithrombotic regimens by conducting an up-to-date network meta-analysis and to identify the optimal treatment for patients with AF undergoing PCI.Data sourcesOnline computerized database (MEDLINE).Study selectionFive randomized studies were included (N?=?11?542; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI).Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this network meta-analysis, in which bayesian random-effects models were applied. The data were analyzed from September 9 to 29, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety outcome was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and the primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).ResultsThe total number of participants included in the study was 11 532. The mean age of the participants ranged from 70 to 72 years, 69% to 83% were male, 20% to 26% were female, and the participants were predominantly white (>90%). Compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (reference), the odds ratios (ORs) (95% credible intervals) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.57 (0.31-1.00) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.69 (0.40-1.16) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus DAPT, and 0.52 (0.35-0.79) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor. For MACE, using VKA plus DAPT as reference, the ORs (95% credible intervals) were 0.97 (0.64-1.42) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.95 (0.64-1.39) for NOAC plus DAPT, and 1.03 (0.77-1.38) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that an antithrombotic regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided, because regimens in which aspirin is discontinued may lead to lower bleeding risk and no difference in antithrombotic effectiveness. The use of a NOAC plus a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin may be the most favorable treatment option and the preferred antithrombotic regimen for most patients with AF undergoing PCI.

Project description:Importance:The antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease, in particular with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), poses a significant treatment dilemma in clinical practice. Objective:To study the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic regimens using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in this population. Data Sources:PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic regimens. Study Selection:Four randomized studies were included (n?=?10?026; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS). Data Extraction and Synthesis:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and network meta-analysis between 4 regimens using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre hoc statistical analysis plan was written, and the review protocol was registered at PROSPERO. Data were analyzed between November 2018 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary safety outcome was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding; secondary safety outcomes were combined TIMI major and minor bleeding, trial-defined primary bleeding events, intracranial hemorrhage, and hospitalization. The primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); secondary efficacy outcomes were individual components of MACE. Results:The overall prevalence of ACS varied from 28% to 61%. The mean age ranged from 70 to 72 years; 20% to 29% of the trial population were women; and most patients were at high risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. Compared with a regimen of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin), the odds ratios (ORs) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-1.08) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30-0.82) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.38-1.23) for NOAC plus DAPT. Compared with VKA plus DAPT, the ORs for MACE were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.60-1.46) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.60-1.45) for NOAC plus DAPT. Conclusions and Relevance:A regimen of NOACs plus P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less bleeding compared with VKAs plus DAPT. Strategies omitting aspirin caused less bleeding, including intracranial bleeding, without significant difference in MACE, compared with strategies including aspirin. Our results support the use of NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor as the preferred regimen post-percutaneous coronary intervention for these high-risk patients with AF. A regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided.