Bleeding risk with triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and drug-eluting stents

Comparison of clinical outcomes between multiple antithrombotic therapy versus left atrial appendage occlusion with dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND

Complex antithrombotic regimens are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation but carry high bleeding risk.

HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to evaluate whether left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) improve clinical outcomes when compared with multiple antithrombotic therapy (MAT) in patients with AF undergoing DES implantation.

METHODS

Among 475 AF patients who underwent DES, 41 patients treated by LAAO with DAPT and 434 patients on MAT were compared. MAT was defined as any combination of warfarin-based antithrombotic therapy. Among the MAT group, 34.8% were on triple antithrombotic therapy. The primary endpoint was a net adverse clinical event (NACE), a composite of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and major bleeding. Secondary endpoints were CVA, major bleeding, major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE), MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. Additional analysis between the new oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based antithrombotic therapy group (n = 45) and the LAAO group was performed for the same endpoints. To adjust the confounding factors, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied during the endpoint analysis.

RESULTS

The LAAO group showed higher incidences of diabetes mellitus, prior CVA, higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.56±1.55 vs. 2.96±1.60; P<0.0001), and higher HAS-BLED score (3.24±1.20 vs. 2.13±0.75; P<0.0001). NACE occurred less frequently in the LAAO group than the MAT group at 24 months (9.4% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio 0.274; 95% confidence interval 0.136 - 0.553; P = 0.0003), mainly driven by the reduction in major bleeding (2.4% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio 0.119; 95% confidence interval 0.032 - 0.438; P = 0.001). The LAAO group with greater thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks showed comparable primary/secondary outcomes with the NOAC-based anti-thrombotic therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with AF who underwent DES implantation, the LAAO group had better net clinical outcomes for preventing CVA and major bleeding than the MAT group. Further large-scale trials including comparisons with NOACs are warranted.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

1. What is the clinical question? What combination antithrombotic therapy is recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation with acute coronary syndrome or patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention? 2. What does the evidence say? Double therapy (DT) with clopidogrel and direct oral anticoagulants (specifically, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) is noninferior to warfarin-based therapies for most patients. Double therapy is noninferior to triple therapy (TT) and has less bleeding complications. 3. What is the take-home message for physicians? According to the latest guidelines by the ACC, AHA, ESC, and HRS, in patients with AF undergoing PCI, DT with DOACs (specifically dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban) plus clopidogrel is acceptable. Patients undergoing PCI or with high ischemic risk may still benefit from TT for at least 1 month and up to 6 months before switching to DT. Currently, there is no specific guidance on long-term antiplatelet therapy in these patients. Duration of antiplatelet therapy, whether with DT or TT, should be based on current DAPT guidelines (depending on indication and type of intervention) and discussions with each patient's cardiologist.

Triple therapy after PCI - Warfarin treatment quality and bleeding risk

Background

A combination of warfarin, aspirin and clopidogrel is indicated after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in some patients, despite the higher risk of bleeding inferred by this triple therapy.

Objectives

Whether the treatment quality of warfarin measured by iTTR (individual time within therapeutic INR range) is associated with bleeding complications during triple therapy after PCI.

Methods

A retrospective register study consisting of 601 triple treated PCI patients from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). The cohort was cross-matched with the Swedish Patient Registry for background characteristics and bleeding complications up to 6 months after PCI using ICD10 codes, the Prescribed Drug Registry for ongoing medications, and the national oral anticoagulation registry Auricula for warfarin treatment quality. The patients were grouped into four iTTR groups: <50%, 50–69.9%, 70–84.9% and >85% as well as iTTR above or below 70%.

Results

Of 601 patients, 39 (6.5%) had a bleeding complication (type 2 according to BARC). Bleeding was more common for iTTR<70% compared to iTTR>70%, 28 (9.3%) vs. 11 (3.7%) (p = 0.005). The bleeding frequency increased gradually from the best group, iTTR>85% with four bleeders (3.3%) up to 17 bleeders (13.3%) in the worst group with iTTR<50% (p = 0.003), with a corresponding bleeding rate per 100 treatment years of 8.0 and 44.9, respectively. In multivariate analysis low BMI, HR 1.11 (95% CI 1.01–1.22), a medical history of anemia HR 3.17 (1.16–8.69) and iTTR < 70% HR 2.86 (1.25–6.53) increased the risk of bleeding.

Conclusion

Triple therapy after PCI confers a high risk of bleeding events. Warfarin treatment quality measured by iTTR as well as a medical history of anemia are strong independent predictors of bleeding in these patients. Physicians should pay more attention to iTTR after PCI.

Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Coated Balloons in Coronary Artery Disease Unsuitable for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment is effective for de novo coronary lesions that are unsuitable for drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study included 118 de novo lesions that were not suitable for DES implantation. Of the lesions, 40% was treated because of very small vessel disease. Patients with planned non-cardiac surgery and at high bleeding risk were 3% and 19%, respectively, and lesions that easily develop stent fracture comprised 26%. Clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) was the primary endpoint. The rate of suboptimal lesion preparation before DCB treatment was set as the secondary endpoint. Optimal lesion preparation was defined as acquisition of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3, minor coronary dissection, and residual stenosis ≤30%. The rate of suboptimal lesion preparation was 2.5% and 3 patients needed bail-out stenting. Accordingly, 115 patients were treated with a DCB. Clinically driven TLR had occurred in 8 patients (7.0%) at the 8-month follow-up. The presence of chronic total occlusion was identified as an independent predictor for TLR (odds 11.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-135.54; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For lesions that are unsuitable for stent implantation, stent-less intervention using a DCB should be considered initially. The present study also highlighted that lesion preparation is key to a successful DCB strategy.

Efficacy and safety of triple versus dual antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of triple therapy (TT [an anticoagulant and 2 antiplatelet drugs]) with dual therapy (DAPT [2 antiplatelet drugs] or DT [an anticoagulant and a single antiplatelet drug]) in patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases for all relevant studies up to August 2017. The overall risk estimates were calculated using the random-effects model. A total of 17 observational studies were included. Regarding the efficacy outcomes, no differences were observed between the triple therapy and the dual therapy for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or thrombotic complications (i.e., acute coronary syndrome, stent thrombosis, thromboembolism/stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Regarding the safety outcomes, compared with DAPT, TT was associated with increased risks of major bleeding (a relative risk of 1.96 [1.40-2.74]), minor bleeding (1.69 [1.06-2.71]) and overall bleeding (1.80 [1.23-2.64]). Compared wtih DT, TT was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding (1.65 [1.23-2.21]), but rates of minor bleeding (0.99 [0.56-1.77]) and overall bleeding (1.14 [0.76-1.71]) were similar. Overall, TT confers an increased hazard of major bleeding with no thromboembolic protection compared with dual therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease.

Clinical utility of early use of tolvaptan in very elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure

Objective:

The establishment of an optimal strategy for elderly patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is currently an important issue. Particularly in very elderly (VE) patients, ADHF is associated with a poor prognosis. We therefore aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the early use of tolvaptan (TLV) in VE patients.

Methods:

Of 245 patients with ADHF admitted between March 2013 and July 2014, we prospectively enrolled 111 patients with TLV first administered within 24 h of hospitalization. These were divided into two groups according to the age: VE (≥85 years, n=45) and not very elderly (NVE, <85 years, n=66). The endpoints were the incidence of worsening renal function, death by any cause, or the length of hospital stay.

Results:

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of worsening renal function (26.7% in VE vs. 25.8% in not VE, p=0.92), dose of TLV after hospitalization (7.4±0.7 vs. 7.5±1.3 mg/day, p=0.63), mean duration of the use of TLV (4.3±3.5 vs. 5.4±4.8 days, p=0.17), or mean length of hospital stay (16.5±7.8 vs. 15.7±8.0 days, p=0.64).

Conclusion:

TLV shows similar efficacy and safety in both VE and NVE groups. Even for VE patients with ADHF, initiation of TLV with standard diuretic treatment may have the potential not to increase the incidence of worsening renal function.

Effect of Optimal Medical Therapy Before Procedures on Outcomes in Coronary Patients Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents

It has not been established whether the achievement of optimal medical therapy (OMT) before implantation of a drug-eluting stent has a clinical benefit for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). This study included 3,004 patients with CAD treated with drug-eluting stent from 123 Japanese participating centers. The achievement of OMT was defined as control of blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dl. The primary end point was target vessel failure, a composite of death related to the target vessel, myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularization at 24 months after stent implantation. Immediately before the procedure, only 548 patients (18.2%) had achieved all 3 target criteria (the achieved OMT group), whereas the remaining 2,456 patients failed to achieve one or more criteria (the non-OMT group). At 24 months, the incidence of target vessel failure was 7.0% in the achieved OMT group versus 10.0% in the non-OMT group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96, p = 0.03). The incidence of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction was also lower in the achieved OMT group than in the non-OMT group (0.5% vs 1.5%, p = 0.08). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that hemoglobin A1c <7.0% was the only protective predictor of 24-month target vessel failure (odds ratio 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.01). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that in patients with stable CAD scheduled for stent implantation, achievement of OMT before percutaneous coronary intervention significantly reduced subsequent cardiac events. Achievement of OMT is still insufficient in modern clinical practice.

Triple antithrombotic therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic regimen in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for complex coronary artery disease is unclear. We compared the net clinical outcomes of triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT; aspirin, thienopyridine, and warfarin) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin and thienopyridine) in AF patients who had undergone DES implantation.

METHODS

A total of 367 patients were enrolled and analyzed retrospectively; 131 patients (35.7%) received TAT and 236 patients (64.3%) received DAPT. DAPT and warfarin were maintained for a minimum of 12 and 24 months, respectively. The primary endpoint was the 2-year net clinical outcomes, a composite of major bleeding and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE). Propensity score-matching analysis was carried out in 99 patient pairs.

RESULTS

The 2-year net clinical outcomes of the TAT group were worse than those of the DAPT group (34.3 vs. 21.1%, P=0.006), which was mainly due to the higher incidence of major bleeding (16.7 vs. 4.6%, P<0.001), without any significant increase in MACCE (22.1 vs. 17.7%, P=0.313). In the multivariate analysis, TAT was an independent predictor of worse net clinical outcomes (odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.50) and major bleeding (odds ratio 3.54, 95% confidence interval 1.65-7.58). After propensity score matching, the TAT group still had worse net clinical outcomes and a higher incidence of major bleeding compared with the DAPT group.

CONCLUSION

In AF patients undergoing DES implantation, prolonged administration of TAT may be harmful due to the substantial increase in the risk for major bleeding without any reduction in MACCE.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for three vessels of chronic total occlusion complicated with huge left ventricular thrombus

A 55-year-old woman with symptoms of heart failure appeared to have ischemic cardiomyopathy complicated with 3-vessel chronic total occlusion (CTO), severely deteriorated left ventricular (LV) function, and large LV thrombus. Because of high risk of surgical thrombectomy in addition to coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, we first confirmed significant reduction of LV thrombus and performed percutaneous coronary intervention against the 3-vessel CTO under preceding anticoagulation therapy with warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel. By means of antegrade/retrograde approach, we successfully implanted everolimus-eluting stents one by one, leading to complete revascularization, dramatically improved LV function, and disappearance of LV thrombus without post-procedural embolism.

Selection of Warfarin or One of the New Oral Antithrombotic Agents for Long-Term Prevention of Stroke among Persons with Atrial Fibrillation

OPINION STATEMENT

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disorder, which can potentially increases the risk of stroke by five-fold, thus, resulting in high public healthcare burden. Stroke prevention is vital in the management of AF patients. Vitamin K antagonists (VKA, eg, warfarin) have been the mainstay treatment to prevent ischemic stroke and systemic thromboembolism in AF patients for several decades. Despite the efficacy of warfarin, its limitations have recently driven the advent of some new antithrombotic agents, the non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOACs, including dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). The NOACs have changed the landscape for thromboembolic prophylaxis among patients with nonvalvular AF. Although three NOACs thus far (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) have been approved in Europe and the United States, for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF on the basis of several Phase III clinical trials, warfarin still remain important in preventing stroke for patients. This is especially true for those with optimal control of international normalized ratio with high (>70 %) time in therapeutic range, valvular AF or associated prosthetic valve. These NOACs are attractive alternatives for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF who are unable or unwilling to receive warfarin. However, several issues should be taken into consideration on safe and effective use of these NOACs in day-to-day clinical practice, for example, pharmacological properties, drug interactions, monitoring and compliance, and treatment of frail elderly patients or patients with renal impairment, etc. The decision about whether to initiate oral anticoagulation either with warfarin or NOACs should be patient-centered and after consideration of both stroke and bleeding risks. It is important for clinical practitioner to offer patients with AF an individualized decision about drug choice, making decision after adequate patient education plus discussion about the risks and benefits of these agents, thus fitting the drug to the patient profile.