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

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

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.

Inhibition of Platelet Aggregation After Coronary Stenting in Patients Receiving Oral Anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% of patients with atrial fibrillation undergo a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat coronary heart disease. Pharmacological anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and PCI involves a trade-off of potential ischemic and hemorrhagic complications.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications that were retrieved by a selective literature search, including current guidelines and recommendations.

RESULTS

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and a P2Y12 inhibitor protects against stent thrombosis, but not against thromboembolic stroke. In contrast, oral anticoagulation does provide effective prevention against stroke during atrial fibrillation. Combining DAPT with oral anticoagulation (triple therapy) over the long term, as has been recommended to date, carries an elevated risk of hemorrhage. In a randomized controlled trial, 44% of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving triple therapy sustained a hemorrhagic event, compared to 19.4% of patients receiving dual therapy. A meta-analysis has shown that clinically relevant hemorrhage is less common under combined treatment with one of the new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and a single antiplatelet drug than under triple therapy including a vitamin K antagonist (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval 0.39; 0.80]), but no significant difference was found with respect to stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or overall mortality.

CONCLUSION

After coronary stent implantation, dual therapy with a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor is recommended, subsequent to triple therapy given only during the peri-interventional period.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Patients Requiring Chronic Anticoagulation

The optimal antithrombotic treatment in patients receiving oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been a field of intensive research. Although triple antithrombotic therapy had been, until lately, the strategy of choice, recent evidence points to the superiority of dual antithrombotic therapy regarding bleeding prevention, without significantly compromising efficacy. In the further challenging scenario of complex PCI, associated with a higher ischemic risk, the efficacy of an aspirin-free strategy, adopted shortly after the index event is under question, rendering decision-making a fairly difficult scenario for clinicians. Since patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing complex PCI are underrepresented in randomized trials, there are scarce data regarding the optimal treatment strategy in such patients. This review aims to analyze and compare different approaches regarding the type and duration of antithrombotic regimens, focusing on both safety and efficacy outcomes, as well as to discuss recent guidelines' suggestions regarding the therapeutic approach in patients receiving oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI procedures of increased complexity.

Antithrombotic therapy with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention or acute coronary syndrome in patients taking oral anticoagulation: A meta-analysis and network analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Trials investigating aspirin omission in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were not powered to assess rates of major bleeding or ischemic events.

METHODS

We performed an updated meta-analysis and network analysis of randomized trials comparing treatment with or without aspirin in patients taking OAC and a P2Y12-inhibitor after PCI or ACS. The primary outcome was TIMI major bleeding.

RESULTS

Five trials enrolling 11,542 patients allocated to antithrombotic regimens omitting (n = 5795) or including aspirin (n = 5747) were included. Aspirin omission was associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.44-0.71]; P < 0.001) but a trend towards a higher risk of MI (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.99-1.47]; P = 0.06), which was significantly higher when only non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC)-based trials were considered (P_interaction = 0.02). The risk of stent thrombosis was comparable with both strategies (RR = 1.29, 95% CI [0.87-1.90]; P = 0.20), with a trend towards a higher risk of ST with aspirin omission when only NOAC-based trials were considered (P_interaction = 0.06). Risks of stroke and death were similar with both strategies. Network meta-analysis ranked dabigatran (low dose) without aspirin as the best strategy for bleeding reduction (P-score = 0.86) and apixaban with aspirin as the best strategy for MI reduction (P-score = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients taking OAC after PCI or ACS, aspirin omission is associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding, with a numerically increased risk of MI, which is statistically significant when only NOAC-based trials are considered. This supports individualization of the treatment regimen based on patient risk.

Role and Timing of Aspirin Therapy Following PCI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

In patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), both anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor) are indicated. However, this "triple" antithrombotic therapy is associated with high rates of bleeding. Finding the right balance of reducing ischemic risk and protecting coronary stents from restenosis while not increasing bleeding risk is difficult. In the past 5 years, 6 randomized clinical trials have shown the benefit of dropping aspirin from the triple therapy regimen to create "dual" therapy (oral anticoagulants and P2Y₁₂ inhibitors alone) with reductions in bleeding without a significant increase in ischemic events. Because of small trends toward higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially in higher risk patients with acute coronary syndromes, current recommendations call for dual therapy as the "default" regimen, but that risk stratification be used to help inform the decision on potentially using a brief period of triple therapy in selected high ischemic risk patients. For long-term therapy (after one year post-PCI), recent studies have found oral anticoagulation alone without any antiplatelet therapy has a favorable benefit risk ratio. Thus, while dropping aspirin at varying times post-PCI has become an attractive strategy in many patient groups, careful patient selection and individualized assessment of the risk:benefit balance is warranted.

Differences in coronary artery disease and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in women and men

INTRODUCTION

Despite common perceptions, coronary artery disease (CAD) is not a male-specific condition, and sex-based differences do occur in many aspects, including clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation. New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) significantly improved post-PCI outcomes. However, no sex-specific guidelines on PCI and the use of DES are available as current evidence was derived from clinical trials enrolling predominantly male patients.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims at exploring sex-based disparities in CAD characteristics and manifestations, and comparing PCI outcomes and the efficacy and safety profiles of DES according to sex. In addition, a critical approach to trials' interpretation with an analysis of sources of bias is provided to inform future research and clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Sex gap in clinical outcomes after PCI with DES implantation is narrowing due to improved performances of new-generation DES. However, scientific research and biomedical engineering are striving to optimize DES profiles and generate new iterations of devices. At the same time, gender initiatives and sex-specific trials are accruing to overcome current issues in the field. Advances in these areas will foster improvements in early and long-term clinical outcomes of both women and men.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective: 2021 Update

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 P2Y₁₂ 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 P2Y₁₂ 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.

Safety and efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions

Introduction: Antiplatelet therapy represents a key strategy for the prevention of thrombotic complications in patients with both acute and chronic coronary syndromes, particularly those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is associated with a bleeding risk proportionate to its duration. Ever growing appreciation of the prognostic implications associated with bleeding and the development of safer stent platforms over the past years have led to a number of novel antiplatelet treatment strategies being tested among patients undergoing PCI. Areas covered: P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after ashort course DAPT has emerged as ableeding reduction strategy to mitigate such risk while still preventing thrombotic complications. In this review we describe the latest evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy in patients undergoing PCI in different clinical settings. Expert opinion: P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy after a brief period of DAPT has emerged as an effective approach to reduce the risk of bleeding without any tradeoff in efficacy (i.e., thrombotic complications). This strategy has shown consistent findings in a number of different clinical settings of patients undergoing PCI. Nevertheless, unanswered questions on the ideal patient and the precise P2Y₁₂ monotherapy regimen warrant further investigation.

Implementation and management outcomes of pharmacogenetic CYP2C19 testing for clopidogrel therapy in clinical practice

Purpose

The antiplatelet prodrug clopidogrel is bioactivated by the polymorphic enzyme CYP2C19. Prospective clinical studies demonstrated an association between CYP2C19 loss of function (LoF) variants and an increased risk of thrombotic events under clopidogrel, but pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is not frequently implemented in clinical practice. We report our experience with PGx-guided clopidogrel therapy with particular regard to clinically relevant patient management changes.

Methods

We conducted an observational study analyzing patients that underwent PGx testing for clopidogrel therapy at two Swiss hospitals. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinically relevant PGx-based management recommendations and their implementation. The association of recurrent ischemic events under clopidogrel with CYP2C19 LoF variants and other factors was explored in a multivariate case-control analysis.

Results

Among 56 patients undergoing PGx testing, 18 (32.1%) were classified as CYP2C19 intermediate or poor metabolizers. This resulted in 17 recommendations for a change of antiplatelet therapy, which were implemented in 12 patients (70.1%). In the remaining five patients, specific reasons for non-implementation could be identified. Recurrent ischemic events under clopidogrel were associated with LoF variants (OR 2.2, 95% CI 0.3–14.4) and several cardiovascular risk factors. Associations were not statistically significant in our small study, but plausible and in line with estimates from large prospective studies.

Conclusion

PGx-guided clopidogrel therapy can identify patients with an elevated risk of ischemic events and offer evidence-based alternative treatments. Successful implementation in clinical practice requires a personalized interdisciplinary service that evaluates indications and additional risk factors, provides specific recommendations, and proactively follows their implementation.

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

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 < 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.

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

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.