Why the study?
Does dual antithrombotic therapy reduce bleeding risk compared to triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does dual antithrombotic therapy reduce bleeding risk compared to triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
In patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, dual therapy with an oral anticoagulant and clopidogrel is safer than triple therapy due to a reduced risk of bleeding without apparent loss of efficacy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Guideline stresses balancing thromboembolic and bleeding risks in AF post-PCI; leaves optimal regimen open pending RCTs.
Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo a coronary intervention are eligible for both anticoagulation and (dual) antiplatelet therapy ((D)APT). An optimal balance has to be found to reduce the thromboembolic risk (i.e. stroke, systemic embolism and myocardial infarction) and to minimise the increased risk of bleeding with concomitant use of an anticoagulant and (D)APT. Owing to a lack of evidence, the guideline recommendations are predominantly based on expert opinion. Current evidence indicates that the combination of a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) and clopidogrel is safer than vitamin-K oral antagonists plus DAPT, which increases the risk of bleeding, without clear advantages in regard to efficacy. Concerning whether (N)OACs should be combined with single APT rather than DAPT, the findings of the WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI and RE-DUAL PCI trials seem to favour a combination with clopidogrel only, thus omitting aspirin. Choosing the optimal treatment strategies for individual patients on NOACs and (D)APT will remain a challenge for clinicians, though triple therapy seems to be the less favourable option owing to the increased risk of bleeding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacobs et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: