Peri-procedural use of rivaroxaban in elective percutaneous coronary intervention to treat stable coronary artery disease. The X-PLORER trial

In vitro evaluation of anticoagulant therapy management when urgent percutaneous coronary intervention is required in rivaroxaban-treated patients

We investigated in vitro the management of intraprocedural anticoagulation in patients requiring immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) while using regular direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Twenty-five patients taking 20 mg of rivaroxaban once daily comprised the study group, while five healthy volunteers included the control group. In the study group, a beginning (24 h after the last rivaroxaban dose) examination was performed. Then, the effects of basal and four different anticoagulant doses (50 IU/kg unfractionated heparin (UFH), 100 IU/kg UFH, 0.5 mg/kg enoxaparin, and 1 mg/kg enoxaparin) on coagulation parameters were investigated at the 4th and 12th h following rivaroxaban intake. The effects of four different anticoagulant doses were evaluated in the control group. The anticoagulant activity was assessed mainly by anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) levels. Beginning anti-Xa levels were significantly higher in the study group than in the control group (0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL vs. 0.20 ± 0.14 IU/mL; p < 0.05). The study group's 4th and 12th-h anti-Xa levels were significantly higher than the beginning level (1.96 ± 1.35 IU/mL vs. 0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL; p < 0.001 and 0.94 ± 1.21 IU/mL vs. 0.69 ± 0.77 IU/mL; p < 0.05, respectively). Anti-Xa levels increased significantly in the study group with the addition of UFH and enoxaparin doses at the 4th and 12th h than the beginning (p < 0.001 at all doses). The safest anti-Xa level (from 0.94 ± 1.21 to 2.00 ± 1.02 IU/mL) was achieved 12 h after rivaroxaban with 0.5 mg/kg enoxaparin. Anticoagulant activity was sufficient for urgent PCI at the 4th h after rivaroxaban treatment, and additional anticoagulant administration may not be required at this time. Twelve hours after taking rivaroxaban, administering 0.5 mg/kg of enoxaparin may provide adequate and safe anticoagulant activity for immediate PCI. This experimental study result should confirm with clinical trials (NCT05541757).

The effect of rivaroxaban on biomarkers in blood and plasma: a review of preclinical and clinical evidence

Rivaroxaban is a direct, oral factor Xa inhibitor that is used for the prevention and treatment of various thromboembolic disorders. Several preclinical and clinical studies have utilized specific molecules as biomarkers to investigate the potential role of rivaroxaban beyond its anticoagulant activity and across a range of biological processes. The aim of this review is to summarize the existing evidence regarding the use of blood-based biomarkers to characterize the effects of rivaroxaban on coagulation and other pathways, including platelet activation, inflammation and endothelial effects. After a literature search using PubMed, almost 100 preclinical and clinical studies were identified that investigated the effects of rivaroxaban using molecular biomarkers. In agreement with the preclinical data, clinical studies reported a trend for reduction in the blood concentrations of D-dimers, thrombin-antithrombin complex and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 following treatment with rivaroxaban in both healthy individuals and those with various chronic conditions. Preclinical and also some clinical studies have also reported a potential impact of rivaroxaban on the concentrations of platelet activation biomarkers (von Willebrand factor, P-selectin and thrombomodulin), endothelial activation biomarkers (matrix metalloproteinase-9, intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1) and inflammation biomarkers (interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1). Based on the results of biomarker studies, molecular biomarkers can be used in addition to traditional coagulation assays to increase the understanding of the anticoagulation effects of rivaroxaban. Moreover, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that rivaroxaban may have an impact on the biological pathways of platelet activation, endothelial activation and inflammation; however, owing to paucity of clinical data to investigate the trends reported in preclinical studies, further investigation is required to clarify these observations.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants use in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndrome or Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The investigation for the optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndromes, and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention constitutes a great challenge for physicians and is a field of extensive research. Although aspirin is commonly recommended as a protective measure for all patients with coronary artery disease and dual antiplatelet therapy for those undergoing procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery, the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events remains significant. In this context, the shortcomings associated with the use of vitamin K antagonists have led to the assessment of direct oral anticoagulants as promising alternatives. This review will explore and provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing data regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome, as well as their effectiveness in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Assessment and Mitigation of Bleeding Risk in Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: Executive Summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper

While there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision for initiating and continuing anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static "one-off" assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by aging, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this executive summary of a European and Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Paper, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with a view to summarizing "best practice" when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, and review established bleeding risk factors and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism, are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Coronary Artery Disease

Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Acute coronary syndrome as a first presentation is common and patients with established disease have a high rate of recurrent ischemic events, despite antiplatelet therapy. Over the past several years, direct oral anticoagulants have become available and have been studied in patients with coronary artery disease. These medications directly inhibit either thrombin or factor Xa which contribute to atherothrombosis. This review will summarize the clinical data regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants in different patient populations with coronary disease and the balance between protection against ischemia and bleeding. Additionally, the review will summarize the available data on the use of direct oral anticoagulants periprocedurally in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The future direction of coronary artery disease and the role of direct oral anticoagulants will rely on further studies determining the optimal combination of antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant regimens that derive ischemic benefit without increased rates of bleeding. Additional upstream blockade of the coagulation cascade with factor XIIa and factor XIa inhibitors may also improve treatment in the future.

ANMCO position paper on antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing intracoronary stenting and/or acute coronary syndromes

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a subgroup with a challenging pharmacological management. Indeed, if on the one hand, antithrombotic therapy should reduce the risk related to recurrent ischaemic events and/or stent thrombosis; on the other hand, care must be taken to avoid major bleeding events. In recent years, several trials, which overall included more than 12 000 patients, have been conducted demonstrating the safety of different therapeutic combinations of oral antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. In the present ANMCO position paper, we propose a decision-making algorithm on antithrombotic strategies based on scientific evidence and expert consensus to be adopted in the periprocedural phase, at the time of hospital discharge, and in the long-term follow-up of patients with AF undergoing PCI with/without ACS.

Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society

Whilst there is a clear clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in reducing the risks of thromboembolism, major bleeding events (especially intracranial bleeds) may still occur and be devastating. The decision to initiate and continue anticoagulation is often based on a careful assessment of both the thromboembolism and bleeding risk. The more common and validated bleeding risk factors have been used to formulate bleeding risk stratification scores, but thromboembolism and bleeding risk factors often overlap. Also, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient and modifiable, such as variable international normalized ratio values, surgical procedures, vascular procedures, or drug-drug and food-drug interactions. Bleeding risk is also not a static 'one off' assessment based on baseline factors but is dynamic, being influenced by ageing, incident comorbidities, and drug therapies. In this Consensus Document, we comprehensively review the published evidence and propose a consensus on bleeding risk assessments in patients with AF and VTE, with the view to summarizing 'best practice' when approaching antithrombotic therapy in these patients. We address the epidemiology and size of the problem of bleeding risk in AF and VTE, review established bleeding risk factors, and summarize definitions of bleeding. Patient values and preferences, balancing the risk of bleeding against thromboembolism are reviewed, and the prognostic implications of bleeding are discussed. We propose consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and assist in everyday clinical practice.

The WOEST 2 registry : A prospective registry on antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) also require aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor (triple therapy). However, triple therapy increases bleeding. The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and stronger P2Y12 inhibitors has increased. The aim of our study was to gain insight into antithrombotic management over time.

Methods

A prospective cohort study of patients on OACs for atrial fibrillation or a mechanical heart valve undergoing PCI was performed. Thrombotic outcomes were myocardial infarction, stroke, target-vessel revascularisation and all-cause mortality. Bleeding outcome was any bleeding. We report the 30-day outcome.

Results

The mean age of the 758 patients was 73.5 ± 8.2 years. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was ≥ 3 in 82% and the HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 in 44%. At discharge, 47% were on vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), 52% on NOACs, 43% on triple therapy and 54% on dual therapy. Treatment with a NOAC plus clopidogrel increased from 14% in 2014 to 67% in 2019. The rate of thrombotic (4.5% vs 2.0%, p = 0.06) and bleeding (17% vs. 14%, p = 0.42) events was not significantly different in patients on VKAs versus NOACs. Also, the rate of thrombotic (2.9% vs 3.4%, p = 0.83) and bleeding (18% vs 14%, p = 0.26) events did not differ significantly between patients on triple versus dual therapy.

Conclusions

Patients on combined oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy undergoing PCI are elderly and have both a high bleeding and ischaemic risk. Over time, a NOAC plus clopidogrel became the preferred treatment. The rate of thrombotic and bleeding events was not significantly different between patients on triple or dual therapy or between those on VKAs versus NOACs.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01664-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low bleeding and thromboembolic risk with continued dabigatran during cardiovascular interventions: the GLORIA-AF study

BACKGROUND

Prospective data on nonvitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) management during cardiovascular interventions are limited. We therefore evaluated the safety and effectiveness of uninterrupted dabigatran therapy as well as dabigatran management during atrial fibrillation (AF)-cardioversions, AF-ablations, pacemaker implantations and coronary angiography and/or stenting procedures.

METHOD

GLORIA-AF is an international registry programme involving patients with newly diagnosed AF. Dabigatran users were followed for ≤2 years. The primary outcome was occurrence of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding ≤8 weeks after a cardiovascular intervention during uninterrupted dabigatran therapy.

RESULTS

During the 2-year follow-up, 599 cardiovascular interventions were identified in 479 eligible patients. 412/599 (69%) interventions were performed with uninterrupted dabigatran therapy: 299/354 (84%) AF-cardioversions, 38/89 (43%) AF-ablations, 25/58 (43%) pacemaker implantations, and 50/98 (51%) coronary angiography and/or stenting procedures. During an average follow-up of 8.4 weeks after intervention, one major bleed and one systemic embolic event occurred (risk 0.25% for both outcomes; 95% confidence interval, 0.01%-1.36%).

CONCLUSIONS

More than two thirds of the interventions were performed with uninterrupted dabigatran therapy, of which most were AF-cardioversions. Uninterrupted dabigatran therapy was associated with low major bleeding and stroke/systemic embolism risk, supporting the favourable safety and effectiveness profile of dabigatran in clinical practice-based settings.

Contemporary use of anticoagulation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a review

Anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary interventions has a rich history that has been shaped by several key clinical trials. The correct choice of anticoagulation during interventions can maximize patient outcomes and ensure a safe procedure. However, in some specific situations, anticoagulation may not be required at all. In this review article, we review the significant clinical trials and current guidelines regarding the use of anticoagulation in the catheterization laboratory and discuss the unique pharmacological aspects of the most commonly used agents, with an emphasis on the specific pharmacokinetic parameters that dictate how these agents are used and monitored. Finally, we discussed the future directions in anticoagulation therapy in coronary artery disease. This review serves as a robust synopsis of the clinical data for practicing clinicians and fellows in training.

Is percutaneous coronary intervention safe during uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndromes?

Objectives

No data on optimal management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) on long-term direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are available. Using the data of the Management of Antithrombotic TherApy in Patients with Chronic or DevelOping AtRial Fibrillation During Hospitalization for PCI study, we sought to compare the outcome of patients with ACS and atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent PCI during uninterrupted DOAC (UDOAC group) and those who interrupted DOAC before PCI (IDOAC group).

Methods

The primary outcomes of our analysis were the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of death, cerebrovascular events, recurrent myocardial infarction or revascularisation and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including major bleeding, at 6 months.

Results

Among the 132 patients on long-term DOAC, 72 (54.6%) underwent PCI during UDOAC and 60 (45.4%) after IDOAC. The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 3.8±1.7 and 3.9±1.3 (p=0.89), while the HAS-BLED score was 2.5±1.0 and 2.5±0.9 (p=0.96), in UDOAC and IDOAC groups, respectively. The median time from hospital admission to PCI was 9.5 (IQR: 2.0–31.5) hours in UDOAC and 45.5 (IQR: 22-5–92.0) hours in IDOAC group (p<0.0001). A radial approach was used in 92%, and a drug-eluting stent was implanted in 98% of patients. At 6 months, the rates of MACE (13.9% vs 16.7%) and NACE (20.8% vs 21.7%) did not differ between UDOAC and IDOAC groups. At multivariable analysis, increasing CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (HR: 1.39; 95% CIs 1.05 to 1.83; p=0.02) resulted as the only independent predictor of NACE.

Conclusions

Our study shows that PCI is a safe procedure during UDOAC in patients with concomitant ACS and AF.

How cardiologists manage antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary stenting: the WOEST survey 2018

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic treatment choices are complicated when patients have both atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome and/or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this study, we aimed to gain insight into antithrombotic management strategies in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

We invited interventional cardiologists to complete the WOEST (What is the Optimal antiplatElet & Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Oral Anticoagulation and Coronary StenTing) survey 2018. In this questionnaire, we presented a patient with a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and an elective PCI case.

RESULTS

The results were based on 118 completed questionnaires (response rate 69.4%). In the case of the AF patient with NSTEMI, most cardiologists indicated they would initiate dual antiplatelet therapy (acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel) and continue non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy at admission and during coronary angiography/PCI. At discharge, 70.3% would prescribe triple antithrombotic therapy (oral anticoagulation, acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel), mostly for 1 month. One year after NSTEMI, 83.1% would cancel the antiplatelet therapy and prescribe NOAC monotherapy. For the AF patient undergoing elective PCI, 51.7% would start dual antiplatelet therapy prior to the procedure and 52.5% would discontinue NOAC therapy prior to the PCI. At discharge, 55.1% would start triple antithrombotic therapy. Furthermore, 25.4% responded they routinely prescribe a reduced dose of NOAC after discharge. One year after PCI, 89.0% would continue NOAC monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The WOEST survey demonstrated heterogeneity in antithrombotic management strategies among interventional cardiologists. This observed variety mirrors the heterogeneity of the many guidelines and consensus documents. Further research is needed to guide patient-tailored medicine for AF patients undergoing PCI.

Updated overview of evidence on optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutanous coronary intervention

Selection of the optimal peri- and postprocedural antithrombotic regimen in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common clinical problem which may pose a challenge to medical practitioners. This systematic review summarizes the updated evidence on this topic. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) at standard doses are the preferred option in most of post PCI patients with AF, except those few with a clear indication for a vitamin K antagonist (VKA). Reduced NOAC doses should be considered in dabigatran- or rivaroxaban-treated patients with a high bleeding risk, which prevail over concerns about stent thrombosis or ischemic stroke. There is insufficient evidence to favor one NOAC over another in this setting. In the early post stenting period, triple therapy comprising a NOAC, clopidogrel and aspirin is recommended. Timing of post PCI aspirin cessation should be based on a careful analysis of the bleeding and ischemic risk. There is only low quality evidence regarding the optimal approach to elective or urgent/emergency PCI procedures in patients requiring oral anticoagulation. It is suggested that there is no need of interruption of VKA and PCI procedure should be performed via radial artery access with a lower dose of unfractionated heparin. On the other hand, NOACs are usually stopped before elective PCIs, while urgent/emergency procedures may be performed with the addition of low-dose parenteral anticoagulation.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation are both common and can occur in the same patient. Combination therapy with dual antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulation increases risk of bleeding. Where the two conditions coexist, careful consideration is needed to determine the optimal antithrombotic treatment to reduce the risks of future ischaemic events associated with both conditions. Choices can be made in intraprocedural anticoagulation, type and dosing of oral anticoagulant, duration of combination therapy, and selection of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor including genetic testing. This review article provides an overview of the available evidence to support clinicians in finding the delicate balance between antithrombotic efficacy and bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians must balance the risks of bleeding and thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation. The potential of non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) to prevent bleeding complications is promising, but evidence remains limited.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence from randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in people with an indication for anticoagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and two clinical trials registers in February 2019. We checked bibliographies of identified studies and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared NOACs and vitamin K antagonists for people with an indication for anticoagulation who underwent PCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked the results of searches to identify relevant studies, assessed each included study, and extracted study data. We conducted random-effects, pairwise analyses using Review Manager 5 and network meta-analyses (NMA) using the R package 'netmeta'. We ranked competing treatments by P scores, which are derived from the P values of all pairwise comparisons, and allow ranking of treatments on a continuous 0 to 1 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, but four were ongoing trials, and were not included in this analysis. We included five RCTs, with 8373 participants, in the NMA (two RCTs compared apixaban to a vitamin K antagonist, two RCTs compared rivaroxaban to a vitamin K antagonist, and one RCT compared dabigatran to a vitamin K antagonist). Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between NOACs and vitamin K antagonists in death from cardiovascular causes (not reported in the dabigatran trial), myocardial infarction, stroke, death from any cause, and stent thrombosis. Apixaban (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92) probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation compared with vitamin K antagonists. No studies looked at health-related quality of life. Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that NOACs may be safer than vitamin K antagonists in terms of bleeding. Both high dose dabigatran (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97), and low dose dabigatran (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70) may reduce major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists. High dose dabigatran (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96), low dose dabigatran (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75), apixaban (RR 0,67 , 95% Cl 0.51 to 0.88), high dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83), and low dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.88) probably reduce non-major bleeding more than vitamin K antagonists. The results from the NMA were inconclusive between the different NOACs for all primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests no meaningful difference in efficacy outcomes between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and vitamin K antagonists following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. NOACs probably reduce the risk of recurrent hospitalisation for adverse events compared with vitamin K antagonists. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that dabigatran may reduce the rates of major and non-major bleeding, and apixaban and rivaroxaban probably reduce the rates of non-major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonists. Our network meta-analysis did not show superiority of one NOAC over another for any of the outcomes. Head to head trials, directly comparing NOACs against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.

The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation

The current manuscript is the second update of the original Practical Guide, published in 2013 [Heidbuchel et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-651; Heidbuchel et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1467-1507]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have emerged as the preferred choice, particularly in patients newly started on anticoagulation. Both physicians and patients are becoming more accustomed to the use of these drugs in clinical practice. However, many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these agents in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group identified 20 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 20 topics are as follows i.e., (1) Eligibility for NOACs; (2) Practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (3) Ensuring adherence to prescribed oral anticoagulant intake; (4) Switching between anticoagulant regimens; (5) Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of NOACs; (6) NOACs in patients with chronic kidney or advanced liver disease; (7) How to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (8) NOAC plasma level measurement: rare indications, precautions, and potential pitfalls; (9) How to deal with dosing errors; (10) What to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a potential risk of bleeding; (11) Management of bleeding under NOAC therapy; (12) Patients undergoing a planned invasive procedure, surgery or ablation; (13) Patients requiring an urgent surgical intervention; (14) Patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (15) Avoiding confusion with NOAC dosing across indications; (16) Cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (17) AF patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; (18) NOACs in special situations; (19) Anticoagulation in AF patients with a malignancy; and (20) Optimizing dose adjustments of VKA. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in different languages can be found on an EHRA website (www.NOACforAF.eu).

Rivaroxaban pharmacodynamics in healthy volunteers evaluated with thrombin generation and the active protein C system: Modeling and assessing interindividual variability

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor with substantial inter-individual pharmacokinetic (PK) variability. Pharmacodynamic (PD) variability, especially assessed with thrombin generation (TG), has been less documented.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To assess TG parameter time profiles in healthy volunteers, with TG being studied under different conditions and (ii) to model the relationship between rivaroxaban concentrations and TG parameters and subsequently estimate interindividual variability.

METHODS

Sixty healthy male volunteers (DRIVING-NCT01627665) received a single 40-mg rivaroxaban dose. Blood sampling was performed at baseline and 10 predefined time points over 24 h. The TG was investigated with the fully automated ST-Genesia system (Stago), using two tissue-factor (TF) concentrations, in the absence (-), or presence (+) of thrombomodulin (TM) for the lowest one. The PD models were built to characterize the relationships between plasma rivaroxaban concentrations and endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) or peak height induced by the lowest TF concentration.

RESULTS

Thrombin generation parameter time profiles with the lowest TF concentration showed a good sensitivity to rivaroxaban, especially +TM (active protein C negative feedback). The relationship between rivaroxaban concentrations and TG parameters was modeled with a sigmoidal relation. Mean rivaroxaban concentrations halving the baseline value of ETP and peak height (-TM) (C50 ) were of 284 and 33.2 ng/mL, respectively: +TM, C50 declined to 19.4 and 13.8 ng/mL, reflecting a powerful inhibitory effect. The estimated C50 population coefficients of variation were of 12.2% (-TM) and 31.3% (+TM) with the peak height models, 34.8% (+TM) with the ETP model.

CONCLUSIONS

This low-rivaroxaban to moderate-rivaroxaban PD variability in healthy volunteers contrasts with the substantial PK variability and deserves to be studied in different patient settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Antiplatelet Therapy Plus Xa Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the effect of oral Xa inhibitors plus antiplatelet therapy in the treatment of coronary artery disease.

Material/Methods

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about antiplatelet therapy plus Xa factor inhibitors for coronary artery disease from database inception to January 2019 were searched for and collected from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers extracted and analyzed the data independently. Additionally, RevMan 5.0 software was applied for meta-analysis.

Results

Seven RCTs with 50 044 patients were included. The meta-analysis results showed that treatment with antiplatelet therapy plus Xa factor inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease could significantly reduce the risk of ischemic events (P<0.00001). Besides, risk of all-cause mortality (P=0.003), myocardial infarction (P=0.02) and ischemic stroke (P<0.0001) were also significantly reduced. However, risk of massive hemorrhage after TIMI (P<0.00001), minor hemorrhage after TIMI (P<0.00001), and intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.006) were significantly increased, respectively. Xa inhibition drugs also intended to increase risk of fatal bleeding, but there was no significant difference (P=0.08).

Conclusions

Antiplatelet therapy plus Xa factor inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease was effective, which could reduce the risk of ischemic composite endpoints, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. However, it could significantly increase risk of bleeding in terms of safety.

Efficacy and safety of adding rivaroxaban to the anti-platelet regimen in patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor, has seldom been used in patients with coronary artery disease. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in addition to the anti-platelet regimen in patients with coronary artery disease.

Methods

Online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane database, www.ClinicalTrials.gov and Google scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials which were exclusively based on patients with coronary artery disease; and which compared efficacy (cardiovascular outcomes) and safety (bleeding outcomes) outcomes with the addition of rivaroxaban to the other anti-platelet agents. Analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software whereby odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated following data input.

Results

Four trials with a total number of 40,148 patients were included (23,231 participants were treated with rivaroxaban whereas 16,919 participants were treated with placebo) in this analysis. Patients’ enrollment period varied from years 2006 to 2016. The current results showed addition of rivaroxaban to significantly lower composite endpoints (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.74–0.88; P = 0.00001). In addition, all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were also significantly reduced (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72–0.92; P = 0.0009), (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69–0.92; P = 0.002), (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77–0.98; P = 0.03) and (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55–0.97; P = 0.03) respectively. However, stroke was not significantly different.

However, TIMI defined minor and major bleeding were significantly higher with rivaroxaban (OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.47–3.49; P = 0.0002) and (OR: 3.44, 95% CI: 1.13–10.52; P = 0.03) respectively. In addition, intracranial hemorrhage and bleeding which was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria were also significantly higher with rivaroxaban (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.04–2.56; P = 0.03) and (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.45–2.22; P = 0.00001) respectively. Nevertheless, fatal bleeding was not significantly different.

Conclusions

Addition of rivaroxaban to the anti-platelet regimen was effective in patients with coronary artery disease, but the safety outcomes were doubtful. Further future trials will be able to completely solve this issue.

Antithrombotic management in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention requiring oral anticoagulation

The dynamic evolution of therapeutic options including the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC), more potent antiplatelet drugs as well as new generation drug-eluting stents could lead to the view that the current recommendations on the management of patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring oral anticoagulation do not keep up with the results of several clinical studies published within the last 5 years. In the present overview, we summarize the recent advances in antithrombotic management used in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI for stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor taken with oral anticoagulants also remain to be established in randomized trials; therefore the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor clopidogrel on top of aspirin or without is now recommended to be used together with a VKA or NOAC. It is still unclear which dose of a NOAC in combination with antiplatelet agents and different stents should be used in this clinical setting and whether indeed NOAC are safer compared with VKA in such cardiovascular patients. Moreover, we discuss the use of anticoagulation in addition to antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in patients with ACS. To minimize bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients following PCI or ACS, the right agent should be prescribed to the right patient at the right dose and supported by regular clinical evaluation and laboratory testing, especially assessment of renal function when a NOAC is used.

Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Coronary Stenting

Stroke prevention is the main priority in the management cascade of atrial fibrillation. Most patients require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and may require percutaneous coronary intervention. Prevention of recurrent cardiac ischemia and stent thrombosis necessitate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for up to 12 months. Triple antithrombotic therapy with OAC plus DAPT of shortest feasible duration is warranted, followed by dual antithrombotic therapy of OAC and antiplatelet agent, and OAC alone after 12 months. Because of elevated risk of hemorrhagic complications, new-generation drug-eluting stents, lower-intensity OAC, radial access, and routine use of gastric protection with proton pump inhibitors are recommended.

Oral anticoagulants in coronary heart disease (Section IV). Position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis - Task Force on Anticoagulants in Heart Disease

Until recently, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were the only available oral anticoagulants evaluated for long-term treatment of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), particularly after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Despite efficacy in this setting, VKAs are rarely used because they are cumbersome to administer. Instead, the more readily manageable antiplatelet agents are the mainstay of prevention in ACS patients. This situation has the potential to change with the introduction of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which are easier to administer than VKAs because they can be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring. The NOACs include dabigatran, which inhibits thrombin, and apixaban, rivaroxaban and edoxaban, which inhibit factor Xa. Apixaban and rivaroxaban were evaluated in phase III trials for prevention of recurrent ischaemia in ACS patients, most of whom were also receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. Although at the doses tested rivaroxaban was effective and apixaban was not, both agents increased major bleeding. The role for the NOACs in ACS management, although promising, is therefore complicated, because it is uncertain how they compare with newer antiplatelet agents, such as prasugrel, ticagrelor or vorapaxar, and because their safety in combination with these other drugs is unknown. Ongoing studies are also now evaluating the use of NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients, where their role is established, with coexistent ACS or coronary stenting. Focusing on CHD, we review the results of clinical trials with the NOACs and provide a perspective on their future incorporation into clinical practice.

Edoxaban for reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Oral anticoagulation is central to the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and at least one additional stroke risk factor. For decades, the vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin) remained the only oral anticoagulant available for stroke prevention in AF. The non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now available, and these drugs include the direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors. The latter class includes edoxaban, which has recently been approved for stroke prevention in AF by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicine Agency. In line with other NOACs, edoxaban avoids the many limitations of warfarin associated with variability of anticoagulation effect and multiple food and drug interactions.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the currently available evidence on edoxaban in patients with non-valvular AF is discussed. The pharmacology, efficacy and safety, and current aspects of use of edoxaban in patients with non-valvular AF for stroke and thromboembolism prevention are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Phase III trials on edoxaban for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF confirms non-inferiority of edoxaban compared to well-managed warfarin both in terms of efficacy and safety. Currently ongoing and future trials as well as real-world data are warranted to confirm its effectiveness and safety for chronic anticoagulation and improve evidence in other areas which are lacking evidence where NOAC use remains controversial.

Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

The current manuscript is an update of the original Practical Guide, published in June 2013[Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, Antz M, Hacke W, Oldgren J, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-51; Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, Antz M, Hacke W, Oldgren J, et al. EHRA practical guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: executive summary. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2094-106]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Both physicians and patients have to learn how to use these drugs effectively and safely in clinical practice. Many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these drugs in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group defined what needs to be considered as 'non-valvular AF' and listed 15 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 15 topics are (i) practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (ii) how to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (iii) drug-drug interactions and pharmacokinetics of NOACs; (iv) switching between anticoagulant regimens; (v) ensuring adherence of NOAC intake; (vi) how to deal with dosing errors; (vii) patients with chronic kidney disease; (viii) what to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a risk of bleeding?; (xi) management of bleeding complications; (x) patients undergoing a planned surgical intervention or ablation; (xi) patients undergoing an urgent surgical intervention; (xii) patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (xiii) cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (xiv) patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; and (xv) NOACs vs. VKAs in AF patients with a malignancy. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in >16 languages can be found on an European Heart Rhythm Association web site (www.NOACforAF.eu).