Dual-Antithrombotic Therapy With DOACs After Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Long-term risks and benefits of oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients with cancer: A report from the GLORIA-AF registry

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and concomitant cancer can be challenging due to the significantly increased risk of both embolism and bleeding. Moreover, the benefits and risks of vitamin K antagonists (VKA, eg. warfarin) versus non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in such patients are less well understood.

METHODS

From the prospective, global, multi-centered Global Registry on Long-Term Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), we characterized these patients according to their history of prior cancer when enrolled. All patients received anticoagulant therapy. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism. The secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, stroke, major bleeding and thromboembolism during the 3 years follow-up period. Cox regression analyses were used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) following propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Overall, among 16,700 patients enrolled in Phase III in GLORIA-AF, 1725 (10%) patients had concomitant cancer(s) at enrolment. After PSM, the primary outcome occurred in 250 (14.8%) of patients with cancer(s) and 160 (9.3%) without cancer(s) (HR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.33-1.97], p < .001) during the 3 years follow-up period. The risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with cancer(s) versus non- cancer(s) (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.37-2.12], p < .001). In patients with cancer(s), after PSM, the use of NOACs was associated with reduced risk of the primary outcome compared with that of VKA (HR, .69 [95% CI, .49-.99], p = .043), as well as a lower risk of thromboembolism (HR, .49 [95% CI, .24-1.00], p = .051), but the risk of major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, .87 [95% CI, .48-1.56], p = .635). Subgroup analysis in patients with cancers showed a reduced risk of major bleeding with NOACs compared with VKA (HR, .18 [95% CI, .04-.8], p = .024) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). For the main cancer subtypes (genitourinary, breast, gastrointestinal, haematological and skin), the trends for the risk of primary outcome were consistently favouring NOACs compared with VKA without any significant interaction among these five cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer is a common comorbidity in patients with AF and is associated with increased risk of composite of all-cause mortality and thromboembolism. Compared with VKA, NOACs was associated with a lower risk of composite events and showed an advantage in lower risk of thromboembolism, as well as a reduced risk of major bleeding when CAD was also present.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease With Recent or Remote Events: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Ongoing debate remains regarding optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following: (i) dual-pathway therapy (DPT; oral anticoagulant [OAC] plus antiplatelet) vs triple therapy (OAC and dual-antiplatelet therapy) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and (iii) OAC monotherapy vs DPT at least 1 year after PCI or ACS. Following a 2-stage process, we identified systematic reviews published between 2019 and 2022 on these 2 clinical questions, and we updated the most comprehensive search for additional RCTs published up to October 2022. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.

Results

Based on 6 RCTs (n = 10,435), DPT reduced major bleeding (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.73) and increased stent thrombosis (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.36), vs triple therapy after PCI or medically-managed ACS, with no significant differences in MACE and death. In 2 RCTs (n = 2905), OAC monotherapy reduced major bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.91) vs DPT in AF patients with remote PCI or ACS, with no significant differences in MACE or death.

Conclusions

In patients with AF and coronary artery disease, using less-aggressive antithrombotic treatment (DPT after PCI or ACS, and OAC alone after remote PCI or ACS) reduced major bleeding, with an increase in stent thrombosis with recent PCI. These results support a minimalist yet personalized antithrombotic strategy for these patients.

Abatement of potent P2Y12 antagonist-based dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) including prasugrel or ticagrelor is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with coronary intervention (PCI). Acknowledging the importance of bleeding, multiple trials tested abatement schemes including uniform or guided de-escalation from the potent P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12-De) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12-Mo) with heterogeneous results. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the impact of DAPT abatement strategies in patients with PCI.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized clinical studies evaluating clinical outcomes of patients after PCI. The rate of adverse events was evaluated using a frequentist network metanalysis. The random-effects model was used to combine risk estimates across trials and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) served as summary statistics. The primary endpoints of interest were the rate of major cardiac adverse events (MACE, defined as the composite of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke) and bleeding.

Results

Ten studies were identified randomizing 42511 patients. 6359 switched to the P2Y12-De and 13062 switched to the P2Y12-Mo. The risk of MACE, reflected a 24% reduction in the P2Y12-De and a 14% in the P2Y12-Mo in comparison with the DAPT strategy using potent P2Y12 inhibitors (RR: 0.76 [0.62, 0.94], and RR: 0.86 [0.75, 0.99], p < 0.05 both). A 35% risk reduction of major bleeding was seen with monotherapy (RR: 0.65 [0.46, 0.91],) contrasting the de-escalation trials where this effect was not significant (RR: 0.84 [0.57, 1.22]). All bleeding and minor bleeding events were reduced with both strategies. Indirect P2Y12-Mo versus P2Y12-De comparisons exhibited them as similar alternatives without significant differences.

Conclusion

Our analysis suggests that both P2Y12-De and P2Y12-Mo reduce ischemic events and bleeding among PCI-treated ACS patients. Ischemic benefit was more expressed with P2Y12-De, however, reduction of major bleeding was only significant with P2Y12-Mo strategy.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258502, identifier CRD42021258502.

Current Perspectives on Antithrombotic Therapy for the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for ACS as this procedure reduces the morbidity and mortality rates of patients in clinical trials and daily practice. However, patients with a history of prior ACS who undergo PCI are still at high risk for recurrent major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Because the antithrombotic drugs reduce the rate of MACE and minimize stent-related complications such as target vessel failure or stent thrombosis, the utilization of these agents is the cornerstone treatment for secondary prevention of ACS patients after PCI. Unfortunately, using the antithrombotic agents may be associated with bleeding complications, including major or fatal bleeding. Therefore, premature discontinuation of antithrombotic regimens regarding the hemorrhagic events is sometimes inevitable and possibly leads to fatal complications such as stent thrombosis. To minimize the bleeding issues, shorten antithrombotic regimens have been proposed, which theoretically offers improved safety. Nevertheless, inappropriate withdrawal of antithrombotic drugs may increase the rate of ischemic events. On the other hand, an unnecessary prolonged antithrombotic regimen may cause avoidable bleeding. Balancing the risk of bleeding against the benefits of using antithrombotic drugs is therefore challenging especially for the patients who contain both bleeding and ischemic risks such as ACS patients who are concomitant using the anticoagulants. Currently, the treatment paradigms are shifting from the "one size fits all approach" toward the "tailored approach". This means that the antithrombotic regimens can be adjustable individually. As a result, various clinical risk scoring systems have been established to help physicians with their decision-making. However, besides the development of these dedicated scoring tools, clinical judgment for balancing the safety versus the efficacy before deciding on the antithrombotic plan is still imperative.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Left Ventricular Thrombi: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), given their safety and convenience in atrial fibrillation, compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). However, the use of DOACs in left ventricular (LV) thrombi is considered off-label, with current guidelines recommending VKAs. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of DOACs to VKAs in the management of LV thrombi.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for studies published between January 1, 2009 and January 31, 2021 in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Included studies compared DOACs to VKAs for the treatment of LV thrombi and reported on relevant outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials were identified, which included 2666 patients (DOAC = 674; VKA = 1992). Compared with VKAs, DOACs were associated with a statistically significant reduction in stroke (OR 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.96; P = 0.03; I 2 = 0%). There were no significant differences in bleeding (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50-1.02; P = 0.07; I2  = 0%), systemic embolism (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41-1.44; P = 0.41; I2  = 0%), stroke or systemic embolism (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53-1.33; P = 0.45; I2  = 33%), mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64-1.57; P = 0.98; I2  = 0%) or LV thrombus resolution (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83-1.99; P = 0.26; I2  = 56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of low-quality evidence, there was a statistically significant reduction in stroke among those treated with DOACs, without an increase in bleeding. There were no significant differences in systemic embolism, stroke or systemic embolism, mortality, or LV thrombus resolution, suggesting that DOACs may be a reasonable option for treatment of LV thrombi.

An update on antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients in long-term ambulatory setting after percutaneous coronary intervention: where do we go from here?

INTRODUCTION

In the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it is unclear which combination of antithrombotic drugs is preferable and which is the optimal duration of treatment.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the available evidence in this area resulting from single studies and meta-analyses. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparisons between different non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC), the authors review the available studies with NOACS in these patients and derived indirect comparisons.

EXPERT OPINION

In patients with AF who undergo PCI, a dual antithrombotic strategy which includes a NOAC plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor (preferably clopidogrel) should be considered as the preferred treatment option in most cases. Oral anticoagulation associated with dual antiplatelet therapy (triple antithrombotic therapy) should be offered for no longer than 30 days to patients with very high thrombotic and low hemorrhagic risk. It is unclear whether the dual antithrombotic strategy should be continued beyond 12 months in patients at high risk of thrombotic events. Additional data from adequately powered controlled studies are needed to support the long-term efficacy of this strategy and to establish the best patient-tailored approach in this complex scenario.

Edoxaban in atrial fibrillation patients with percutaneous coronary intervention by acute or chronic coronary syndrome presentation: a pre-specified analysis of the ENTRUST-AF PCI trial

Aims 

To compare the safety and efficacy of edoxaban combined with P2Y₁₂ inhibition following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

Methods and results 

In this pre-specified sub-analysis of the ENTRUST-AF PCI trial, participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to edoxaban- or vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-based strategy and randomization was stratified by ACS (edoxaban n = 388, VKA n = 389) vs. CCS (edoxaban n = 363, VKA = 366). Participants received edoxaban 60 mg once-daily plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor for 12 months, or VKA combined with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and aspirin 100 mg (for 1–12 months). The primary bleeding endpoint at 12 months occurred in 59 (15.2%) vs. 79 (20.3%) ACS patients [hazard ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–1.02, P = 0.063], and in 69 (19.0%) vs. 73 (19.9%) CCS patients (HR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.68–1.31, P = 0.708) with edoxaban- and VKA-based therapy, respectively [P for interaction (P-int) = 0.2741]. The main secondary endpoint (composite of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolic events, or definite stent thrombosis) in ACS patients was 33 (8.5%) vs. 28 (7.2%) (HR: 1.16, 95%CI: 0.70–1.92), compared with 16 (4.4%) vs. 18 (4.9%) (HR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.47–1.78) CCS patients with edoxaban and VKA-based therapy, respectively (P-int = 0.5573).

Conclusions 

In patients with AF who underwent PCI, the edoxaban-based regimen, as compared with VKA-based regimen, provides consistent safety and similar efficacy for ischaemic events in patients with AF regardless of their clinical presentation.

Risk of Stroke vs. Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Dual vs. Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

BACKGROUND

About 15% of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation might require percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) with stent placement to treat obstructive coronary artery disease. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) and P2Y12 antagonist is recommended after PCI. Patients requiring DAPT also require treatment with oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify the antithrombotic regimen associated with the lowest rate of bleeding and thromboembolic events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation after PCI.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases to identify randomized trials that investigated the use of dual antiplatelet therapy and vitamin K antagonist and/or Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) (triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT)) against single antiplatelet agent and NOAC (dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT)) in the setting of coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring PCI and non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Random-effect models were used to pool data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity between trials.

RESULTS

We found 4 randomized clinical trials (ENTRUST, AUGUSTUS, PIONEER, REDUAL) using different NOACs. Overall, 9241 patients (median age 70 years, 41.4% female, mean CHADS2VASC Score 3.5) were included. We excluded patients in the very low dose rivaroxaban group from the PIONEER AF-PCI trial and low dose dabigatran group from the REDUAL PCI trial as these are not available in the United States. Our metanalysis showed that dual therapy was associated with less risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.99; p = 0.045; I² = 42%) and major bleeding (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.55-0.79; p < 0.0001; I² = 27%) as compared to triple therapy. Further risk of ischemic stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.39; p = 0.75; I²=0%), myocardial infarction (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94-1.47; p = 0.16; I² = 0), or stent thrombosis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.93-2.41; p = 0.10; I² = 0%) were unchanged. Similar findings were also noted on analysis of NOAC specific DAT vs VKA based TAT.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of an antiplatelet and NOACs (dual therapy) is associated with less risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, with no significant difference in ischemic events (stroke myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis).