Incidence, Source, Determinants, and Prognostic Impact of Major Bleeding in Outpatients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Patients with Atrial Fibrillation are Unlikely to Benefit from Aspirin Monotherapy

Background

Aspirin (ASA), the mainstay antiplatelet treatment in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), has been received by a considerable number of AF patients. This study sought to examine the association between ASA monotherapy and the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

A total of 850 patients with AF were identified from a community-based Kailuan study. All patients were assigned to two groups according to their medicine history: an aspirin therapy group (ASA group) (n = 174), and a non-aspirin therapy group (non-ASA group) (n = 676). The clinical endpoints are MACCE, including myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke (IS), and hemorrhagic stroke (HS). Incidence curves for MACCE were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Log rank test was used to assess the differences in incidence rates. The hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for MACCE were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazards analysis regression models.

Results

During the 7.2-year follow-up, 30 MACCE occurred in the ASA group, and 101 in the non-ASA group, with a cumulative incidence of 19.88% vs 17.27%, P = 0.511; 3 cases of MI occurred in the ASA group, and 18 cases in the non-ASA group, with a cumulative incidence of 1.78% vs 2.90%, P = 0.305. Twenty-seven cases of IS occurred in the ASA group, and 84 cases in the non-ASA group, with a cumulative incidence of 1.78% vs 2.90%, P = 0.305. Eight cases of HS occurred in the ASA group, and 13 cases in the non-ASA group, with a cumulative incidence of 5.01% vs 2.34%, P = 0.045. Multivariate regression analysis showed that ASA therapy was not associated with MACCE (HR: 1.130, 95% CI: 0.747-1.710, P = 0.562). In addition, ASA therapy was not associated with IS (HR: 1.309, 95% CI: 0.843-2.034, P = 0.231). However, ASA therapy was significantly associated with HS (HR: 2.563, 95% CI: 1.024-6.418, P = 0.044).

Conclusion

ASA monotherapy is not associated with a lower risk of ischemic events, while significantly associated with a higher risk of bleeding events. Patients with AF are unlikely to benefit from aspirin monotherapy.

The ABCs of the 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline for the management of patients with chronic coronary disease

BACKGROUND

The 2023 Multisociety Guideline for the Management of Chronic Coronary Disease (CCD) updates recommendations for CCD, formerly known as "stable ischemic heart disease." This condition encompasses a spectrum of coronary vascular pathologies from subclinical to clinical ischemic heart disease.

HYPOTHESIS

The new "ABC" mnemonic offers clinicians a streamlined framework for applying Class One Recommendations (COR1) and integrating recent updates into CCD management.

METHODS

A critical analysis of the 2023 CCD guidelines was conducted, with this review highlighting key elements.

RESULTS

The review outlines crucial changes, including novel recommendations supported by current clinical evidence. The focus is on these developments, clarifying their importance for day-to-day clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The review encourages a synergistic approach between primary healthcare providers and cardiologists to develop comprehensive strategies for lifestyle modification and medication therapy in CCD care. Furthermore, it suggests that utilizing comprehensive risk assessment tools can refine medical decision-making, ultimately enhancing patient care and clinical outcomes.

Cardiovascular medications used for comorbid diseases in patients with atrial fibrillation. The JoFib study

PURPOSE

Many atrial fibrillation (AF) patients use cardiovascular medications for indications other than AF. These medications can affect morbidity and mortality. We aim to investigate the characteristics of AF patients who use different medication classes and their clinical course.

METHODS

We collected data from the prospective, multicenter registry, JoFib study. We identified classes of non-AF medications (medications not used for rate control, rhythm control, or anticoagulation), described demographic and clinical characteristics, and investigated AF-related outcomes according to these medication classes.

RESULTS

From a total of 2020 patients, five classes of cardiovascular non-AF medications were identified, aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, statins, and diuretics. The most commonly used non-AF medications were diuretics and ACE inhibitors/ARBs (39.2%, and 39%, respectively). 51% of AF patients took more than one non-AF medication. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy independently reduced the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (aHR 0.50, 95%CI 0.37-0.68; aHR 0.51, 95%CI 0.34-0.75, respectively) and that statin therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular mortality (aHR 0.68, 95%CI 0.48-0.98) in AF patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated a protective effect of statin therapy against the secondary outcome, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) (adjusted OR 0.62 95%CI 0.42-0.94).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a protective effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs against all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, statins against cardiovascular mortality, and CRNMB in patients with AF. Accordingly, these medications should be encouraged in patients with AF when indicated. Additionally, future research should explore whether these medications should be offered to AF patients more routinely. The study was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (unique identifier number: NCT03917992, Registration date:14/4/2019).

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Incidence, source, and prognostic impact of major bleeding across the spectrum of aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been associated with bleeding. However, there is a lack of prospective assessment of bleeding events and their clinical significance in a large population of outpatients with variable degree of AS severity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence, source, determinants, and prognostic impact of major bleeding in patients with variable degree of AS severity.

METHODS

Between May 2016 and December 2017, consecutive outpatients were included. Major bleeding was defined as type ≥3 bleed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition. Cumulative incidence was calculated with death as the competing event. Data was censored at time of aortic valve replacement.

RESULTS

Among 2,830 patients, 46 major bleeding events occurred (0.7%/year) during a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range: 1.4-2.7). Most frequent sites of bleeding were gastrointestinal (50%) and intracranial (30.4%). Major bleeding was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 5.93 (95% confidence interval 3.64-9.65); P < .001). AS severity was associated with major bleedings (P = .041). By multivariable analysis, severe AS was an independent determinant of major bleeding (hazard ratio vs mild AS: 3.59 [95% confidence interval 1.56-8.29]; P = .003). The increased risk of bleeding associated with severe AS was significantly exacerbated in patients using oral anticoagulation.

CONCLUSION

In AS patients, major bleeding is rare but a strong independent predictor of death. AS severity is a determinant of bleeding events. Severe AS and oral anticoagulation should be identified as an association at very high risk of major bleeding.

Dual therapy with oral anticoagulation and single antiplatelet agent versus monotherapy with oral anticoagulation alone in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable ischemic heart disease, recent guidelines recommend oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy in preference to OAC + single antiplatelet agent (SAPT) dual therapy. However, these data are based on the results of only two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a relatively small group of patients. Thus, the safety and efficacy of this approach may be underpowered to detect a significant difference. We hypothesized that OAC monotherapy will have a reduced risk of bleeding, but similar all-cause mortality and ischemic outcomes as compared to dual therapy (OAC + SAPT).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus was conducted. Safety outcomes included total bleeding, major bleeding, and others. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RCTs and observational studies were pooled separately (study design stratified meta-analysis). Subgroup analyses were performed for vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Pooled risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 2 RCTs comprising a total of 2905 patients showed that dual therapy (OAC + SAPT) vs. OAC monotherapy was associated with a statistically significant increase in major bleeding (RR 1.51; 95% CI [1.10, 2.06]). There was no significant reduction in MACE (RR 1.10; [0.71, 1.72]), stroke (RR 1.29; [0.85, 1.95]), myocardial infarction (RR 0.57; [0.28, 1.16]), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.22; [0.63, 2.35]), or all-cause mortality (RR 1.18 [0.52, 2.68]). Meta-analysis of 20 observational studies comprising 47,451 patients showed that dual therapy (OAC + SAPT) vs. OAC monotherapy was associated with a statistically significant higher total bleeding (RR 1.50; [1.20, 1.88]), major bleeding (RR = 1.49; [1.38, 1.61]), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 1.62; [1.15, 2.28]), and myocardial infarction (RR = 1.15; [1.05, 1.26]), without significantly lower MACE (RR 1.10; [0.97, 1.24]), stroke (RR 0.93; [0.73, 1.19]), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; [0.95, 1.29]), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.93; [0.78, 1.11]). Subgroup analysis showed similar results for both vitamin K antagonists and DOACs, except a statistically significant higher intracranial bleeding with vitamin K antagonist + SAPT vs. vitamin K antagonist monotherapy (RR 1.89; [1.36-2.63]).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AF and stable ischemic heart disease, OAC + SAPT as compared to OAC monotherapy is associated with a significant increase in bleeding events without a significant reduction in thrombotic events, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Antithrombotic Management in AF Patients Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A European Perspective

AF is a highly prevalent disease, often requiring long-term oral anticoagulation to prevent stroke or systemic embolism. Coronary artery disease, which is common among AF patients, is often referred for myocardial revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which requires dual antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of stent-related complications. The overlap of AF and PCI is a clinical conundrum, especially in the early post-procedural period, when both long-term oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy are theoretically indicated as a triple antithrombotic therapy. However, stacking drugs is not a desirable option because of the increased bleeding risk. Several strategies have been investigated to mitigate this concern, including shortening triple antithrombotic therapy duration and switching to a dual antithrombotic regimen. This review analyses the mechanisms underlying thrombotic complications in AF-PCI, summarises evidence surrounding antithrombotic therapy regimens and reports and comments on the latest European guidelines.

Efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with stable coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in real-world elderly patients with comorbidities of stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years old) diagnosed with SCAD and AF were consecutively recruited and grouped into patients with or without oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. Follow-up was performed for 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and systemic embolism. Major bleeding outcomes were defined as events that were type ≥ 3 based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. The net clinical outcomes were defined as the combination of MACEs and bleeding of BARC type ≥ 3.

Results

A cohort of 832 eligible patients (78 ± 6.70 years) was included. Compared to the patients without OAC treatment (n = 531, 63.82%), the patients treated with OAC (n = 301, 36.18%) were much younger, had higher body mass index (BMI), and had lower prevalence of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), renal insufficiency, and previous myocardial infarction. During the follow-up of 5 years, compared to the patients without OAC treatment, patients with OAC had a significantly lower risk of MACEs (20.60% vs. 58.95%, adjusted HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.15–0.30, p < 0.001) but a higher risk of BARC ≥ 3 bleeding events (4.65% vs. 1.32%, adjusted HR: 4.71, 95% CI: 1.75–12.64, p = 0.002). In combination, a lower risk of net clinical outcomes could be observed in the patients with OACs (23.26% vs. 58.96%, adjusted HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.19–0.38, p < 0.001). Among the patients with OAC treatment, no significant difference was found for MACEs or BARC ≥ 3 bleeding events between the patients with or without comedications of oral antiplatelet agents.

Conclusions

A net clinical benefit of efficacy and safety could be observed in OAC-treated elderly patients with SCAD and AF. This benefit is independent of the comedications of oral antiplatelet treatment.

Management of stable coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation with anti-thrombotic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Long term management of patients with stable coronary artery disease of >1 year after myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention and atrial fibrillation is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using oral anti-coagulation (OAC) alone although the recommendation is weak and there is low quality evidence. Two new randomized control trials (RCTs) were published recently. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of these studies on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs and observational studies to compare OAC alone versus OAC plus single anti-platelet therapy.

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted using appropriate terms from 3 databases. Relevant studies included. Data extracted and analysis were performed using STATA.

MEASUREMENTS

Summary statistics were pooled and measured for primary and secondary outcomes of both treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 10,120 patients were included for the analysis. Five thousand two hundred thirty-seven patients were on combination therapy while 4883 were on OAC alone. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.912-1.249; P value .417). There was no statistically significant difference even in the measured secondary outcomes namely all cause mortality (HR 1.048; 95% CI 0.830-1.323; P value .695), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.863; 95% CI 0.593-1.254; P value .439). However, we found statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of MI with higher incidence in mono therapy group (HR 1.229; 95% CI 1.011-1.495; P value .039) and higher incidence of major bleeding in the combination therapy group in the subgroup analysis (HR 0.649; 95% CI 0.464-0.907; P value .011).

CONCLUSION

We found no reduction of major adverse cardiac event between combination therapy and mono therapy. Although mono therapy showed increased risk of major bleeding overall, subgroup analysis of the RCTs showed increased risk of major bleeding in the combination therapy group. MI was higher in the mono therapy group compared to the combination therapy group, however this outcome was not reproducible in the subgroup analysis of the RCTs.

Management of antithrombotics in situations with a gap in evidence: A national French survey focusing on patients with coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

If several randomized studies allowed to better apprehend what should be the best antithrombotic strategy in patients with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF), there are still several clinical situations with a gap of evidence.

METHODS

We conducted a national French survey in September-October 2020 among cardiologists in order to assess what are daily practices regarding the antithrombotic management in several specific clinical settings where no or little scientific evidence is available. The questionnaires were built by a committee of 6 cardiologists routinely involved in the field of CAD and/or AF.

RESULTS

Among the 6388 French cardiologists, 483 (7.6%) cardiologists participated to the survey. The rate of participation was rather homogeneous across the country. The mean age of participants was 48 +/- 12.7. There were 134 women (27.7%) and 349 men. Altogether, 181 (37.5%) cardiologists worked in private, 153 (31.7%) in non-universitary public and 83 (17.2%) in universitary public centers. The remaining had shared activity. Among the participants, 150 were interventional (coronary) cardiologists (31.1%). Others were general cardiologists (n = 229), specialists in the field of rhythmology (n = 43), heart failure (n = 17) or imaging (n = 44). The survey consisted of 10 questions pertaining to 2 virtual clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The present survey is an illustration of how therapeutic decisions may vary in such situations with little or no scientific evidence. Such surveys may help experts to build consensus (answers with little variability) and to target the need for future trials and more research (answers with a lot of variability).

Simplified Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) Definition Predicts Bleeding Events in Patients With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

It has recently been reported that the simplified Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) definition, which excludes 6 rare criteria, is comparable to the original ARC-HBR definition in predicting major bleeding in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we investigated whether the simplified ARC-HBR definition could be applied to patients with heart failure (HF) to identify those at high bleeding risk (HBR).Methods and Results:In all, 2,437 patients hospitalized for HF were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the simplified ARC-HBR definition: those at HBR (n=2,026; 83.1%) and those not (non-HBR group; n=411; 16.9%). The HBR group was older (72.0 vs. 61.0 years; P<0.001) and had a lower prevalence of CAD (31.1% vs. 36.5%; P=0.034) than the non-HBR group. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that post-discharge bleeding events defined as hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding were more frequent in the HBR than non-HBR group (log-rank P<0.001). The simplified ARC-HBR definition accurately predicted bleeding events (Fine-Gray model; hazard ratio 2.777, 95% confidence interval 1.464-5.270, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The simplified ARC-HBR definition predicts a high risk of bleeding events in patients with HF.

Outcomes after ticagrelor versus clopidogrel treatment in end-stage renal disease patients with acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study

Clinical outcomes are unknown after ticagrelor treatment in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). ESRD patients who were on hemodialysis and received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for AMI between July 2013 and December 2016 were identified in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients receiving aspirin plus ticagrelor (n = 530) were compared with those receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (n = 2462) for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and bleeding, defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Study outcomes were compared between the two groups using Cox proportional hazards model or competing risk model for the hazard ratio or subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR). During 9 months of follow-up, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel with respect to the risks of primary efficacy endpoint [11.69 vs. 9.28/100 patient-months; SHR, 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–1.4] and bleeding (5.55 vs. 4.36/100 patient-months; SHR 1.14; 95% CI 0.88–1.47). In conclusion, among hemodialysis patients receiving DAPT for AMI, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel with regard to the composite efficacy endpoint and bleeding.

Long‐term antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the efficacy and safety of different long‐term antithrombotic regimens for people with AF and stable CAD.

Antithrombotic Management for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Comprehensive protection of a patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) should not only reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism, but also reduce the risk coronary events and ensure high adherence to treatment. In accordance with consensus document issued by the European Heart Rhythm Association, European Society of Cardiology, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, as well as with other recent Russian Society of Cardiology Guidelines, the management of antithrombotic therapy of patients with AF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requires that multiple and interconnected issues. The review article addresses questions about duration of initial triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT), selection of P2Y12 inhibitor, choice of oral anticoagulant to be combined with antiplatelet therapy, intensity of oral anticoagulation throughout combination therapy, and choice of oral anticoagulant for indefinite therapy. In general, it is recommended to refuse the routine use of TAT for most patients. Accordingly, for patients who need both anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy, it is strongly recommended that the default strategy after recent PCI is a double antithrombotic therapy consisting of an anticoagulant and one antiplatelet, preferably from the group of P2Y12 inhibitors. When conducting combined antithrombotic therapy, preference should be given to clopidogrel compared to other, more powerful P2Y12 inhibitors and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) instead of vitamin K antagonists. The primary choice of DOAC in patients with AF who have undergone PCI should be carried out taking into account such factors as individual risk of stroke and bleeding, adherence to treatment, concomitant diseases, pharmacological characteristics and evidence base of a specific DOAC, taking other medications, etc. The pharmacokinetic features of rivaroxaban, which create the possibility of its single administration, the evidence base for reducing coronary risks in various variants of the course of coronary heart disease, determines the special positions of the drug for the comprehensive protection of patients with AF after PCI.

Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation

OBJECTIVE

Optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation has not been well established in the era of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC).

METHODS

Using Korean National Health Insurance Service data, we analysed 4294 patients with AF who were prescribed DOAC beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation. Subjects were classified into the monotherapy group (DOAC single therapy, n=1221) or the combination therapy group (DOAC with an antiplatelet agent, n=3073). The primary ischaemic endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic thromboembolism. The secondary endpoints were all-cause death, major bleeding defined as a bleeding event requiring hospitalisation and net adverse clinical events. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline covariates.

RESULTS

Among included patients, 94% had drug-eluting coronary stents. During a median follow-up of 19 (7-32) months, the monotherapy group had a similar risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint (HR 0.828, 95% CI 0.660 to 1.038) and all-cause death (HR 1.076, 95% CI 0.895 to 1.294) compared with the combination therapy group. Risk of major bleeding was lower in the monotherapy group (HR 0.690, 95% CI 0.481 to 0.989), which was mostly driven by reduced gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.562, 95% CI 0.358 to 0.883). There was no significant difference in net adverse clinical events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC monotherapy showed similar efficacy in preventing ischaemic events and was associated with lower major bleeding events compared with combination therapy in patients with AF beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation.

Glasgow-Blatchford Score Predicts Post-Discharge Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure

Background: The Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) is one of the most widely used scoring systems for predicting clinical outcomes for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). However, the clinical significance of the GBS in predicting GIB in patients with heart failure (HF) remains unclear. Methods and Results: We conducted a prospective observational study in which we collected the clinical data of a total of 2236 patients (1130 men, median 70 years old) who were admitted to Fukushima Medical University Hospital for acute decompensated HF. During the post-discharge follow-up period of a median of 1235 days, seventy-eight (3.5%) patients experienced GIB. The GBS was calculated based on blood urea nitrogen, hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and history of hepatic disease. The survival classification and regression tree analysis revealed that the accurate cut-off point of the GBS in predicting post-discharge GIB was six points. The patients were divided into two groups: the high GBS group (GBS > 6, n = 702, 31.4%) and the low GBS group (GBS ≤ 6, n = 1534, 68.6%). The Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that GIB rates were higher in the high GBS group than in the low GBS group. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for age, malignant tumor, and albumin indicated that a high GBS was an independent predictor of GIB (hazards ratio 2.258, 95% confidence interval 1.326–3.845, p = 0.003). Conclusions: A high GBS is an independent predictor and useful risk stratification score of post-discharge GIB in patients with HF.

Unique referral system contributes to long-term net clinical benefits in patients undergoing secondary prevention therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention

Cardiovascular disease, including ischemic heart disease, is a leading cause of death worldwide. Improvement of the secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease is necessary. We established a unique referral system to connect hospitals and outpatient clinics to coordinate care between general practitioners and cardiologists. Here, we evaluated the impact and long-term benefits of our system for ischemic heart disease patients undergoing secondary prevention therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. This single-center retrospective observational study included 3658 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at Shizuoka City Hospital between 2010 and 2019. After percutaneous coronary intervention, patients were considered conventional outpatients (conventional follow-up group) or subjected to our unique referral system (referral system group) at the attending cardiologist's discretion. To audit compliance of the treatment with the latest Japanese guidelines, we adopted a circulation-type referral system, whereby general practitioners needed to refer registered patients at least once a year, even if no cardiac events occurred. Clinical events in each patient were evaluated. Net adverse clinical events were defined as a combination of major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and major bleeding events. There were 2241 and 1417 patients in the conventional follow-up and referral system groups, with mean follow-ups of 1255 and 1548 days and cumulative net adverse clinical event incidences of 27.6% and 21.5%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the occurrence of net adverse clinical events was significantly lower in the referral system group than in the conventional follow-up group (log-rank: P<0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the unique referral system was a significant predictor of the net clinical benefits (hazard ratio: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.83, P = 0.004). This result was consistent after propensity-score matching. In summary, our unique referral system contributed to long-term net clinical benefits for the secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Safety and efficacy of anticoagulant monotherapy in atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adjunctive use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a challenge of daily practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of databases was performed to identify studies comparing the safety and efficacy of OAC monotherapy and combined therapy (OAC plus single (S) APT). Events including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding were analyzed.

RESULTS

Seven articles comprising 11,070 subjects were identified. Combined therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding (pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 1.62, 95% CI 1.40-1.86, p=<0.0001) compared to the OAC monotherapy. There was no significant difference between the two comparison arms in terms of MACE (HR 1.14; 95% CI 0.97-1.34, p = 0.11), stroke (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.77-1.43, p = 0.78) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.94-1.40, p = 0.16). Stratified analysis by inclusion of only patients with coronary stents attenuated the safety effect of monotherapy. Subgroup analysis based on the study design, type of OAC, major bleeding criteria and APT revealed findings consistent with the pooled HR. The combined therapy group had a 19% and 38% higher risk of MACE in studies with a history of MI (p = 0.03) and with the use of rivaroxaban (p = 0.02), respectively.

CONCLUSION

OAC monotherapy might have a lower incidence of major bleeding events with no higher overall risk of MACE, ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality compared to the combined therapy group.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation often require oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet therapies. Triple antithrombotic therapy (OAC, a P2Y₁₂-receptor inhibitor, and aspirin) has been the default antithrombotic strategy. Evidence from randomized trials indicates, however, that a dual antithrombotic therapy strategy (OAC plus a P2Y₁₂-receptor inhibitor) reduces bleeding risk without increasing the risk of ischemic events. This review provides an overview of advancements in this field as well as European and North American guidelines and consensus documents to inform clinical decision making around antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention.

Relative impact of bleedings over ischaemic events in patients with heart failure: insights from the CARDIONOR registry

AIMS

Major bleeding events in heart failure (HF) patients are poorly described. We sought to investigate the importance of major bleeding and its impact on outcomes in HF patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed incident bleeding and ischaemic events during a 3 year follow-up in 2910 HF outpatients included in a prospective multicentre registry. Major bleeding was defined as a Type ≥3 bleed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition. Ischaemic event was a composite of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Events were adjudicated by a blinded committee. At inclusion, most patients (89%) received at least one antithrombotic: anticoagulation (53.9%) and/or antiplatelet therapy (46.2%). Bleeding occurred in 111 patients {3 year cumulative incidence: 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0-4.3]} and ischaemic events in 102 patients [3 year cumulative incidence: 3.3% (95% CI 2.7-4.0)]. Most bleedings were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3a (32.5%) or 3b (31.5%). Most frequent sites of bleeding were gastrointestinal (40.6%) and intracranial (27.9%). Variables associated with bleeding were atrial fibrillation [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.63 (95% CI 1.66-4.19), P < 0.0001], diabetes [HR = 1.62 (95% CI 1.11-2.38), P = 0.012], and older age [HR = 1.19 per 10 year increase (95% CI 1.00-1.41), P = 0.049]. Anticoagulation use was associated with a two-fold increase in the bleeding risk. Bleeding events as well as ischaemic events were strongly associated with subsequent mortality [adjusted HRs: 5.67 (4.41-7.29), P < 0.0001 and 4.29 (3.18-5.78), P < 0.0001, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

In HF outpatients, antithrombotics are widely used. Bleeding occurs at a stable rate of 1.2% annually (as frequent as ischaemic events) and is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality (at least as severe as ischaemic events). Most events occurred in patients receiving anticoagulation. Knowledge of these findings may help physicians to manage antithrombotics in HF patients.

Real-Life Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Outpatients with Coronary Artery Disease

Background: The risk, correlates, and consequences of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) are largely unknown. Methods and results: We analyzed incident AF during a 3-year follow-up in 5031 CAD outpatients included in the prospective multicenter CARDIONOR registry and with no history of AF at baseline. Incident AF occurred in 266 patients (3-year cumulative incidence: 4.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.1 to 5.3)). Incident AF was diagnosed during cardiology outpatient visits in 177 (66.5%) patients, 87 of whom were asymptomatic. Of note, 46 (17.3%) patients were diagnosed at time of hospitalization for heart failure, and a few patients (n = 5) at the time of ischemic stroke. Five variables were independently associated with incident AF: older age (p < 0.0001), heart failure (p = 0.003), lower left ventricle ejection fraction (p = 0.008), history of hypertension (p = 0.010), and diabetes mellitus (p = 0.033). Anticoagulant therapy was used in 245 (92%) patients and was associated with an antiplatelet drug in half (n = 122). Incident AF was a powerful predictor of all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.47 to 2.83; p < 0.0001) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.88; 95% CI: 1.88 to 4.43; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In CAD outpatients, real-life incident AF occurs at a stable rate of 1.6% annually and is frequently diagnosed in asymptomatic patients during cardiology outpatient visits. Anticoagulation is used in most cases, often combined with antiplatelet therapy. Incident AF is associated with increased mortality.

Antithrombotic therapy in coronary artery disease patients with atrial fibrillation

Background

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist in clinical practice, making it challenging for the treating physician to choose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies. The aim of this study was to investigate antithrombotic strategies and assess related adverse outcomes in stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with AF when the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was ≥2.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study and collected data from a computer-based patient record management system in Zhengzhou University People’s Hospital in China. In total, 2978 patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of CAD and concomitant AF who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016, and data from 2050 patients were finally analysed. The χ² test was used to compare the incidences of clinical endpoints between the SCAD+AF group and the ACS + AF group. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictive factors of adverse outcomes in both groups.

Results

Oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy was the most common antithrombotic therapy in SCAD+AF patients (49.55%), while double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was the most common treatment in ACS + AF patients (54.19%) at discharge. OAC monotherapy significantly increased and the use of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) decreased during follow-up (34 ± 13 months) when compared to their use at discharge in the SCAD+AF group (all p < 0.001). In the ACS + AF group, the proportion of patients using DAPT decreased notably, while the proportions of patients using SAPT and dual therapy (DT) combining OAC with SAPT increased significantly during follow-up (all p < 0.001) compared to the proportions at discharge. According to multivariable Cox regression analysis, age, hypertension and prior stroke were independent risk factors for ischaemic stroke in the SCAD+AF group and ACS + AF group (all p < 0.05). OAC was an independent protective factor for ischaemic stroke in both groups (all p < 0.05). Previous bleeding independently increased the risk of haemorrhage in both groups (all p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In this study, the proportion of anticoagulant-antiplatelet combined therapy was low in ACS + AF patients with high stroke risk. In clinical practice, the awareness of anticoagulation needs to be strengthened regarding patients with CAD and AF.

Antithrombotic Strategy for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Perspective from East Asia

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention has become the standard of care, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Current clinical guidelines recommend novel P2Y12 inhibitors (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) in addition to aspirin based on the results of representative randomized controlled trials conducted predominantly in Western countries. These agents were superior to clopidogrel in reducing the composite ischemic events, with a trade-off of the increased bleeding events. However, multiple differences exist between East Asian and Western patients, especially with respect to their physique, thrombogenicity, hemorrhagic diathesis, and on-treatment platelet reactivity. Recent studies from East Asian countries (e.g., Japan or South Korea) have consistently demonstrated that use of novel P2Y12 inhibitors is associated with a higher risk of bleeding events than use of clopidogrel, despite borderline statistical difference in the incidence of composite ischemic events. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that the optimal duration of DAPT may be shorter in East Asian than Western patients. This review summarizes clinical studies of antithrombotic strategies in East Asian patients with ACS. Understanding these differences in antithrombotic strategies including DAPT and their impacts on clinical outcomes will aid in selection of the optimal tailored antithrombotic therapy for patients with ACS.

Comparative Assessment of Predictive Performance of PRECISE-DAPT, CRUSADE, and ACUITY Scores in Risk Stratifying 30-Day Bleeding Events

Background  The utility of the PRECISE-DAPT score in predicting short-term major bleeding, either alone, or in comparison with the CRUSADE and ACUITY scores, has not been investigated. This analysis compared the predictive performances of the three bleeding scores in stratifying the risk of 30-day major bleeding postpercutaneous coronary intervention in patients with dual-antiplatelet therapy.

Methods  In this post hoc subanalysis of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial, the primary safety objective (bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] criteria [type 3 or 5]) was assessed at 30 days according to the three scores in the overall population, and in patients with acute (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

Results  In a total of 15,968 patients, we calculated all three scores in 14,709 (92.1%). Irrespective of clinical presentation, the PRECISE-DAPT ( c -statistics: 0.648, 0.653, and 0.641, respectively), CRUSADE ( c -statistics: 0.641, 0.639, and 0.644, respectively), and ACUITY ( c -statistics: 0.633, 0.638, and 0.623, respectively) scores were no significant between-score differences in discriminatory performance for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding up to 30 days, and similarly the PRECISE-DAPT score had a comparable discriminative capacity according to the integrated discrimination improvement when compared with the other scores. In ACS, the CRUSADE score had a poor calibration ability (Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit [GOF] chi-square = 15.561, p  = 0.049), whereas in CCS, the PRECISE-DAPT score had poor calibration (GOF chi-square = 15.758, p  = 0.046).

Conclusion  The PRECISE-DAPT score might be clinically useful in the overall population and ACS patients for the prediction of short-term major bleeding considering its discriminative and calibration abilities.

Evaluating Effectiveness and Safety in Chronic Kidney Disease with Atrial Flutter Using an Anticoagulation Strategy

Background and objectives: Recent randomized trials of oral antithrombotic drugs with atrial flutter (AFL) excluded patients with renal impairment because of their increased risk of bleeding. To date, no relevant studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of different antithrombotic drugs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with AFL. This cohort study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of different antithrombotic drugs in CKD patients with AFL. This study also investigated the risk of cardiovascular events from antithrombotic drugs through different risk profiles of stroke stratified by the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Materials and Methods: This cohort study was performed in patients with AFL and CKD who were extracted from the National Health Insurance (NHI) Database in Taiwan. Oral antithrombotic therapy (oral anticoagulants (OAC) or antiplatelets (APT)) was administered to patients who had been diagnosed with AFL after being diagnosed with CKD between 2011 and 2015. Primary outcomes, including ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and composite of stroke, and secondary outcomes, including major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), major bleeding, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular-related death, were examined. Results: A total of 2468 patients were included in this study. The results showed no statistically significant differences in the risk of primary outcomes. For the secondary outcomes, there were also no statistically significant differences in the risk of MACEs and major bleeding. However, the pooled results indicated that the hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality with OAC was 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.10–0.55) compared with combination therapy, and the HR for APT compared with OAC was 2.86 (95% CI = 1.48–5.53). Conclusions: In the studied population, OAC or APT alone were proved equally effective for stroke prophylaxis. Furthermore, OAC might reduce the all-cause mortality rate compared with APT and should be considered as the first choice of oral antithrombotic drugs in patients with AFL and CKD.

Choices in antithrombotic management for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: questions (and answers) in chronological sequence

In accordance with the 2018 joint consensus document issued by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA), and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Latin America Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), and Cardiac Arrhythmia Society of Southern Africa (CASSA), as well as with other recent ESC Guidelines, the management of antithrombotic therapy of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention requires that multiple and interconnected issues, including, duration of initial triple antithrombotic therapy, selection of P2Y12 inhibitor, choice of oral anticoagulant to be combined with antiplatelet therapy, intensity of oral anticoagulation throughout combination therapy, and choice of oral anticoagulant for indefinite therapy, are addressed. To assist the responsible physician in clinical decision making, a series of practical questions are proposed and discussed in the chronological sequence they should likely be answered.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention; insights from a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome with concomitant atrial fibrillation is largely under investigation.

METHOD

PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2019 for randomized trials or subgroup analyses of randomized trials investigating different antithrombotic strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared dual antithrombotic therapy versus triple antithrombotic therapy. Dual antithrombotic therapy was defined as vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant plus P2Y12 inhibitor. Triple antithrombotic therapy was defined as vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant plus dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus P2Y12 inhibitor). The primary safety outcome was trial outcome was trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Our search identified 5 eligible subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials that enrolled a total of 4733 patients. Dual antithrombotic therapy significantly decreased the bleeding risk when compared with triple antithrombotic therapy (hazard ratio: 0.61; 95% confidential interval [0.51-0.71], P < 0.001, I = 31%). However, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular event between dual antithrombotic therapy versus triple antithrombotic therapy (hazard ratio: 1.08; 95% confidential interval: 0.89-1.31, P = 0.44, I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, dual antithrombotic therapy was associated with lower bleeding risk compared with triple antithrombotic therapy while conferring similar major adverse cardiovascular event risk. Our results should be interpreted cautiously because we did not analyze the risk of stent thrombosis.

Meta-analysis of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), antithrombotic therapy including oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets are indicated. The optimal combination is not known. We investigated the efficacy and safety of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with AF undergoing PCI. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through September 2019 for randomized trials investigating the efficacy and safety of different antithrombotic strategies in patients with AF who underwent PCI and/or acute coronary syndrome. Nine antithrombotic strategies were compared including combinations of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, combinations of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban) with DAPT or P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). The primary safety outcome was trial defined primary bleeding outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events. Our search identified 5 eligible trials that enrolled a total of 11,532 patients and compared 9 treatment strategies. VKA + DAPT significantly increased bleeding when compared with most combinations (for example, vs VKA + P2Y₁₂ inhibitor: odds ratio 2.11; 95% confidence interval [1.76 to 2.52], p <0.001). Of all the combinations, apixaban + P₂Y₁₂ inhibitor showed the lowest bleeding risk (for example, vs VKA + P2Y₁₂ inhibitor: odds ratio 0.63; 95% confidence interval [0.51 to 0.78], p <0.001) and was ranked the best treatment. There were no significant differences in ischemic outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events between various antithrombotic regimens. In conclusion, in patients with AF undergoing PCI, apixaban + P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were associated with lowest bleeding compared with other regimens including other DOACs + P2Y₁₂ inhibitors with no increase in ischemic outcomes.

Mechanisms of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with atrial fibrillation, prior stenting and long-standing chronic coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic coronary syndromes beyond 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a matter of debate. For these patients, guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) alone, but the risk of thrombotic complications remains a concern. The aim of this study was to characterize the incidence, presentation and use of antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF, prior stenting > 12 months and new ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

Consecutive patients were selected from an institutional registry over a 3-year period if they matched the following criteria: 1) STEMI undergoing primary PCI; 2) AF; 3) chronic coronary syndrome with prior stenting > 12 months.

RESULTS

Among 852 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, the prevalence of AF was 4.1%, and 6 (0.9%) patients met all the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity in antithrombotic treatment for these patients was noted (e.g., OAC alone, OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent, no antithrombotic therapy). In 50% of patients, the STEMI episode was linked to a previously stented lesion or documented plaque.

CONCLUSIONS

This case review illustrates the wide heterogeneity in antithrombotic pharmacotherapy among AF patients presenting with STEMI > 12 months after PCI. The underlying reason for STEMI is only partly related to disease progression or stent-related events. This finding suggests that multiple mechanisms of recurrence may be advocated, and are not only limited to antithrombotic therapy but may be explained by the natural history of coronary artery disease in remote vessels.

Treatment of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Chinese Patients on Antithrombotic Therapy

Objective

To assess the treatment of acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB) in Chinese patients on antithrombotic therapy.

Methods

The clinical data of patients with ANVUGIB who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy 24 h after bleeding at Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, from 2016 to 2018, were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into antithrombotic therapy and control groups and into high-risk (Forrest Ia, Ib, IIa, and IIb) and low-risk (Forrest IIc and III) bleeding groups according to the results of endoscopy.

Results

In all, 230 patients were enrolled, with 99 cases in the antithrombotic group (antiplatelet therapy 80 patients, anticoagulant therapy 19 patients) and 131 cases in the control group (without antithrombotic therapy). A total of 78 and 21 and 84 and 47 patients were at high- and low- risk for bleeding (P = 0.019) in the antithrombotic and control groups, respectively; 12.1% and 4.6% had esophageal bleeding (P = 0.047), and 8 and 2 patients received interventional therapy (P = 0.021). Overall, 21 patients with hemodynamic instability were treated via endoscopy with anesthesia under tracheal intubation and ventilator support: 20 patients in the antithrombotic group (13 patients within 1 month after coronary intervention, 5 patients within 1 month of cardiac-valve replacement, and 2 patients within 4 years of cardiac-valve replacement) and 1 patient with third-degree atrioventricular block in the control group. Ten patients received interventional therapy: eight and two in the two groups, respectively. Multidisciplinary consultation was conducted to regulate the use of antithrombotic drugs.

Conclusion

Compared to the controls, patients in the antithrombotic group had a significantly higher incidence of critical and active bleeding. Patients with hemodynamic instability should be examined and treated via upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under anesthesia with tracheal intubation and ventilator support.

Bleeding in cardiac patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs: electronic health record phenotyping algorithms, incidence, trends and prognosis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines and public health authorities lack recommendations on scalable approaches to defining and monitoring the occurrence and severity of bleeding in populations prescribed antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We examined linked primary care, hospital admission and death registry electronic health records (CALIBER 1998-2010, England) of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina or stable angina with the aim to develop algorithms for bleeding events. Using the developed bleeding phenotypes, Kaplan-Meier plots were used to estimate the incidence of bleeding events and we used Cox regression models to assess the prognosis for all-cause mortality, atherothrombotic events and further bleeding.

RESULTS

We present electronic health record phenotyping algorithms for bleeding based on bleeding diagnosis in primary or hospital care, symptoms, transfusion, surgical procedures and haemoglobin values. In validation of the phenotype, we estimated a positive predictive value of 0.88 (95% CI 0.64, 0.99) for hospitalised bleeding. Amongst 128,815 patients, 27,259 (21.2%) had at least 1 bleeding event, with 5-year risks of bleeding of 29.1%, 21.9%, 25.3% and 23.4% following diagnoses of atrial fibrillation, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina and stable angina, respectively. Rates of hospitalised bleeding per 1000 patients more than doubled from 1.02 (95% CI 0.83, 1.22) in January 1998 to 2.68 (95% CI 2.49, 2.88) in December 2009 coinciding with the increased rates of antiplatelet and vitamin K antagonist prescribing. Patients with hospitalised bleeding and primary care bleeding, with or without markers of severity, were at increased risk of all-cause mortality and atherothrombotic events compared to those with no bleeding. For example, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 1.98 (95% CI 1.86, 2.11) for primary care bleeding with markers of severity and 1.99 (95% CI 1.92, 2.05) for hospitalised bleeding without markers of severity, compared to patients with no bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic health record bleeding phenotyping algorithms offer a scalable approach to monitoring bleeding in the population. Incidence of bleeding has doubled in incidence since 1998, affects one in four cardiovascular disease patients, and is associated with poor prognosis. Efforts are required to tackle this iatrogenic epidemic.

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Guidelines recommend oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy without antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) of >1 year after myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. More evidences are required for the safety and efficacy of OAC monotherapy compared with OAC plus APT. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched up to February 2019. Nonrandomized studies and randomized clinical trials comparing OAC monotherapy with OAC plus single APT (SAPT) for patients with stable CAD and nonvalvular AF. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of ischemic or thrombotic events) and secondary outcomes included major bleeding, stroke, all-cause death, and net adverse events (composite of ischemic, thrombotic, or bleeding events). From 6 trials, 8,855 patients were included. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event in patients with AF treated using OAC plus SAPT compared with those treated with OAC monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.29). OAC plus SAPT was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with OAC monotherapy (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.87), as well as in terms of net adverse event (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke and all-cause death. In conclusion, in this meta-analysis, OAC monotherapy and OAC plus SAPT treatment showed similar effectiveness, but OAC monotherapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with OAC plus SAPT in patients with nonvalvular AF and stable CAD.

Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System can Predict 1-Year Bleeding Events in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Aims: The assessment of bleeding risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is clinically important. We recently developed the Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System (T-TAS) for the quantitative analysis of thrombus formation using microchips with thrombogenic surfaces. Here, we assessed the utility of T-TAS parameters in predicting 1-year bleeding events in patients with CAD.

Methods: The study subjects were 561 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) between August 2013 and September 2016 for suspected CAD. Blood samples collected at the time of CAG were used for T-TAS to compute the area under the curve (AUC) (AR₁₀-AUC₃₀) in the AR chip. Patients were divided into three groups according to AR₁₀-AUC₃₀ (low: ≤ 1603, intermediate, and high: > 1765, n = 187 each). One-year bleeding events were defined by the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes criteria.

Results: Bleeding occurred in 21 (3.7%) patients and was classified as major (8 [1.4%]) and minor (13 [2.3%]). The AR₁₀-AUC₃₀ levels were significantly lower in the bleeding group than the non-bleeding group (median [interquartile range] 1590 [1442–1734] vs. 1687 [1546–1797], p = 0.04). Univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that low AR₁₀-AUC₃₀, high prothrombin time-international normalized ratio levels, and diabetes correlated with bleeding events. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified low AR₁₀-AUC₃₀ levels as a significant determinant of bleeding events. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a higher rate of bleeding events in the low than the high AR₁₀-AUC₃₀ group (p = 0.007).

Conclusions: The results highlight the potential usefulness of the AR₁₀-AUC₃₀ levels in the prediction of 1-year bleeding events in patients with CAD treated with various antithrombotic therapies.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Admitted With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) poses significant management challenges and may be associated with poor outcomes. We sought to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of GIB in STEMI patients using a nationwide database. We identified adults admitted with STEMI between in the National Inpatient Sample (2003 to 2016), and compared the morbidity, mortality, resource utilization, and cost in patients with and without GIB. We assessed rates of endoscopy referral and its associated with mortality. Among 1,450,696 weighted STEMI hospitalizations, 32,624 (2.2%) were complicated with GIB. Patients with GIB were older, and had distinctive characteristics compared to those without GIB. Older age, cardiogenic shock; history of peptic ulcer disease, cirrhosis, anemia, or alcohol use disorder were the strongest predictors of GIB during STEMI hospitalizations. In-hospital mortality was higher in the GIB group (28.2% vs 11.1%, p <0.001). The excess mortality associated with GIB persisted after propensity-score matching, and in sensitivity analyses excluding patients who underwent coronary intervention >24-hours after admission, and those transferred to another hospital. Post-STEMI GIB was associated with more strokes and acute kidney injury, longer hospitalizations, and higher cost. In a logistic regression analysis, GIB was independently associated with mortality (odds ratios [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85 to 1.97, p <0.001). There was a correlation between undergoing endoscopy and lower in-hospital mortality (unadjusted OR 0.27; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.29; adjusted-OR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.33; p <0.001). In conclusion, GIB complicating STEMI is uncommon but is associated with excess morbidity, mortality, resource utilization and cost. Referral to endoscopy in this cohort may be associated with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Association of Adding Aspirin to Warfarin Therapy Without an Apparent Indication With Bleeding and Other Adverse Events

IMPORTANCE

It is not clear how often patients receive aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) while receiving oral anticoagulation with warfarin sodium without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin, such as a mechanical heart valve replacement, recent percutaneous coronary intervention, or acute coronary syndrome. The clinical outcomes of such patients treated with warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with warfarin monotherapy are not well defined to date.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of adding aspirin to warfarin for patients without a clear therapeutic indication for combination therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A registry-based cohort study of adults enrolled at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017) who were receiving warfarin therapy for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism without documentation of a recent myocardial infarction or history of valve replacement.

EXPOSURE

Aspirin use without therapeutic indication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Rates of any bleeding, major bleeding events, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and thrombotic events at 1, 2, and 3 years.

RESULTS

Of the study cohort of 6539 patients (3326 men [50.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [15.5] years), 2453 patients (37.5%) without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin were receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy. Data from 2 propensity score-matched cohorts of 1844 patients were analyzed (warfarin and aspirin vs warfarin only). At 1 year, patients receiving combination warfarin and aspirin compared with those receiving warfarin only had higher rates of overall bleeding (cumulative incidence, 26.0%; 95% CI, 23.8%-28.3% vs 20.3%; 95% CI, 18.3%-22.3%; P < .001), major bleeding (5.7%; 95% CI, 4.6%-7.1% vs 3.3%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.3%; P < .001), emergency department visits for bleeding (13.3%; 95% CI, 11.6%-15.1% vs 9.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-11.4%; P = .001), and hospitalizations for bleeding (8.1%; 6.8%-9.6% vs 5.2%; 4.1%-6.4%; P = .001). Rates of thrombosis were similar, with a 1-year cumulative incidence of 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.1%) for those receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.6%) for those receiving warfarin alone (P = .40). Similar findings persisted during 3 years of follow-up as well as in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Compared with warfarin monotherapy, receipt of combination warfarin and aspirin therapy was associated with increased bleeding and similar observed rates of thrombosis. Further research is needed to better stratify which patients may benefit from aspirin while anticoagulated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; clinicians should be judicious in selecting patients for combination therapy.

Triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI: current evidence and practice

INTRODUCTION

Patients with atrial fibrillation taking oral anticoagulation and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent insertion are recommended to receive antithrombotic therapy with aspirin and P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist. This combinatory regime encompasses triple therapy (TT). Although TT reduces the risk of ischemic events such as stroke and stent thrombosis, it is associated with an increased bleeding risk. Areas covered: The efficacy and safety profile of TT is uncertain with undetermined optimal duration and therapeutic combination. This review summarizes relevant trials evaluating TTs application and introduces exploration of duration and dosage in addition to other contributory factors including stent type and choice of antithrombotic agents. Expert commentary: TT has shown to be effective for reduction of ischemic risk. However, trials have failed to demonstrate the regime's superiority in efficacy over alternatives such as dual therapy (single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant) and continue to denote an increased bleeding risk. Further research driven by a balance between thromboembolic and bleeding end points is required to demonstrate TTs potential beneficence, along with optimal duration identification and antithrombotic choice. Individualized patient risk stratification, along with risk factor optimization should also be incorporated.

Elective Coronary Revascularization Procedures in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Incidence, Determinants, and Outcome (From the CORONOR Study)

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to describe the incidence, determinants, and outcome of elective coronary revascularization (ECR) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Observational data are lacking regarding the practice of ECR in patients with stable CAD receiving modern secondary prevention.

METHODS

The authors analyzed coronary revascularization procedures performed during a 5-year follow-up in 4,094 stable CAD outpatients included in the prospective multicenter CORONOR (Suivi d'une cohorte de patients COROnariens stables en région NORd-Pas-de-Calais) registry.

RESULTS

Secondary prevention medications were widely prescribed at inclusion (antiplatelet agents 96.4%, statins 92.2%, renin-angiotensin system antagonists 81.8%). A total of 481 patients underwent ≥1 coronary revascularization procedure (5-year cumulative incidences of 3.6% [0.7% per year] for acute revascularizations and 8.9% [1.8% per year] for ECR); there were 677 deaths during the same period. Seven baseline variables were independently associated with ECR: prior coronary stent implantation (p < 0.0001), absence of prior myocardial infarction (p < 0.0001), higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.0001), lower age (p < 0.0001), multivessel CAD (p = 0.003), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.005), and absence of treatment with renin-angiotensin system antagonists (p = 0.020). Main indications for ECR were angina associated with a positive stress test (31%), silent ischemia (31%), and angina alone (25%). The use of ECR had no impact on the subsequent risk of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.76 to 1.41).

CONCLUSIONS

These real-life data show that ECR is performed at a rate of 1.8% per year in stable CAD patients widely treated by secondary medical prevention. ECR procedures performed in patients without noninvasive stress tests are not rare. Having an ECR was not associated with the risk of ischemic adverse events.

Association of Diabetic Status and Glycemic Control With Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: The 5-Year CORONOR Registry

Background

The relation between diabetes mellitus, glycemic control, and ischemic and bleeding events is poorly described in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease receiving modern secondary prevention.

Methods and Results

The multicenter CORONOR (Suivi d'une cohorte de patients Coronariens stables en région Nord‐pas‐de‐Calais) registry enrolled 4184 outpatients with stable coronary artery disease, including 1297 patients (31%) with diabetes mellitus. A recent glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was available for 1146 diabetic patients, and 48% had HbA1c ≥7%. We analyzed 5‐year ischemic (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3) outcomes, according to diabetic status and glycemic control. When compared with nondiabetic patients, the ischemic risk was higher in diabetic patients with HbA1c ≥7% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25–1.93) but not in diabetic patients with HbA1c <7% (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83–1.36). Diabetic patients with HbA1c ≥7% were at higher risk than diabetic patients with HbA1c <7% (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09–1.98). When compared with nondiabetic patients, the bleeding risk was higher in diabetic patients, with HbA1c <7% (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04–2.67) and in those with HbA1c ≥7% (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.07–2.86). No difference in bleeding risk was observed between diabetic patients with HbA1c ≥7% versus those with HbA1c <7%. Similar results were obtained when adjusted for baseline characteristics.

Conclusions

The 5‐year increased risk of ischemic events in patients with stable coronary artery disease with diabetes mellitus was restricted to those with HbA1c ≥7%. By contrast, the increase in bleeding risk associated with diabetes mellitus was observed in patients with HbA1c ≥7% and in patients with HbA1c <7%. The level of HbA1c should be taken into account for future research and may help physicians to manage prolonged antithrombotic therapies in this high‐risk subgroup.

Incidence and determinants of cerebrovascular events in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease

Introduction

There are limited data on cerebrovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease. To study the risk of cerebrovascular event, the relative proportion of ischaemic stroke and intracranial haemorrhage, and their prognostic factors in stable coronary artery disease are investigated.

Patients and methods

The CORONOR registry prospectively recruited, between February 2010 and April 2011, 4184 unselected stable coronary artery disease outpatients. All events occurring during a five-year follow-up were adjudicated.

Results

Ninety-six patients had an ischaemic stroke and 34 had an intracranial haemorrhage, reaching a cumulative incidence after five years of 3.2 (2.7-3.8)%. During the same period, 677 deaths and 170 myocardial infarctions (ST-elevation MI, n = 55; non-ST-elevation MI, n = 115) occurred. In elderly individuals, the number of cerebrovascular events was higher than that of myocardial infarctions and largely exceeded that of ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. Predictors of ischaemic stroke were: previous history of stroke (subhazard ratio (SHR)=3.16(1.95-5.14)), absence of statin therapy at inclusion (SHR = 2.45(1.47-4.10), increasing age (SHR = 1.45(1.16-1.82) per 10-year increase) and diabetes mellitus (SHR = 1.65(1.10-2.49)). Predictors of intracranial haemorrhage were: combination of vitamin K antagonists with an antiplatelet agent at inclusion (SHR = 5.41(2.49-11.75), single antiplatelet therapy as reference), and increasing age (SHR = 1.47(1.12-1.93) per 10-year increase).

Discussion

In stable coronary artery disease patients, the brain deserves attention. In patients at high risk of ischaemic stroke, secondary prevention could be intensified. Our results raise awareness of the hazard of the association of antiplatelet drugs with oral anticoagulants in stable coronary artery disease patients.

Conclusion

While improving the prevention of future vaso-occlusive events should be our ultimate goal in coronary artery disease patients, the net clinical benefit of our treatments should carefully be studied.

Reaching low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment targets in stable coronary artery disease: Determinants and prognostic impact

BACKGROUND

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction is an integral part of the management of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

AIMS

To assess attainment of LDL-C goals during long-term treatment of patients with stable CAD, and to determine predictors of goal attainment and the prognostic impact of reaching LDL-C<70mg/dL (1.8mmol/L) in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Data were obtained for 4080 outpatients with stable CAD included in the multicentre CORONOR study. Five-year follow-up was achieved for 3991 (97.8%) patients.

RESULTS

At inclusion, a recent (<1 year) measurement of LDL-C was available in 3757 (92.1%) patients. LDL-C<70mg/dL was reached by 885 (23.6%) patients. Independent predictors of LDL-C<70mg/dL were diabetes mellitus, statin treatment, treatment with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, previous myocardial infarction and short time since last coronary event. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or coronary revascularization) during the 5-year follow-up was 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.58; P=0.004) for LDL-C≥70mg/dL versus<70mg/dL. When compared with patients with LDL-C<70mg/dL, the adjusted HRs for LDL-C 70-99mg/dL and ≥100mg/dL (2.6mmol/L) were 1.27 (95% CI: 1.05-1.55; P=0.016) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.12-1.70; P=0.003), respectively. When LDL-C was used as a continuous variable, the adjusted HRs for increases of 10mg/dL (0.3mmol/L) and 1mmol/L were 1.05 (95% CI: 1.03-1.08) and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.10-1.33), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study, only a minority of stable CAD patients had LDL-C<70mg/dL. The patients who reached their LDL-C goal had the lowest risk of cardiovascular events.

Cessation of oral anticoagulation is an important risk factor for stroke and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients

Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is highly effective preventing stroke and mortality in AF, but withdrawal is common in the elderly, when high bleeding risk and when are difficulties achieving an optimal time in therapeutic range (TTR). We analysed the rate of OAC cessation, predisposing factors to cessation and the relation to clinical outcomes in a large ‘real world’ cohort of AF patients over a long follow-up period. Consecutive non-valvular AF outpatients clinically stables for six months were recruited. Rates of cardiovascular events, major bleeding and mortality were recorded and related to OAC cessation. We included 1361 patients (48.7 % male; aged 76, IQR 71–81), followed-up for a median of 6.5 years. During follow-up, 244 patients suffered thrombotic events, 250 suffered from major bleeding and 551 patients died. 10 % of patients stopped OAC. After OAC withdrawal, there were 36 thromboembolic events (22 strokes), 10 major bleedings and 75 deaths. OAC cessation was independently associated with adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.45; 95 % CI 1.01–2.08), stroke/TIA (HR 1.85; 1.17–2.94) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 1.02–1.67). Independent predictors of OAC cessation were age ≥80 (HR 2.29; 1.60–3.29), previous coronary artery disease (HR 0.32; 0.15–0.71), major bleeding (HR 5.00; 3.49–7.15), heart failure (HR 2.38; 1.26–4.47), cancer (HR 5.24; 3.25–8.44) and renal impairment developed during follow-up (HR 2.70; 1.26–5.75). In conclusion, in non-valvular AF patients, cessation of OAC was independently associated with the risk of stroke, adverse cardiovascular events and mortality. Bleeding events and some variables associated with higher bleeding risk are responsible for OAC cessation.

Note: The review process for this manuscript was fully handled by Christian Weber, Editor in Chief.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.