Key result
Double antithrombotic therapy reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared with triple therapy in AF patients with ACS (RR 0.63; P<0.0001) and stable CAD (RR 0.68; P=0.0008).
Why the study?
Safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients with AF undergoing PCI may differ based on clinical presentation.
Does double antithrombotic therapy reduce bleeding compared to triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with or without acute coronary syndrome?
Meta-Analysis (n=10,193)
Yes
Does double antithrombotic therapy reduce bleeding compared to triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with or without acute coronary syndrome?
Relative Risk: 0.63 (95% CI 0.56–0.71)
Absolute Event Rate: 12.2% vs 19.4%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Double antithrombotic therapy significantly reduces bleeding risks compared to triple therapy in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing PCI, regardless of acute coronary syndrome presentation, with a small non-significant excess of cardiac ischemic events.
Supports preferring double over triple antithrombotic therapy to reduce bleeding in AF patients post-PCI; confirms consistent benefit across ACS and stable CAD.
AIMS: Safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may differ based on clinical presentation. We sought to compare double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in AF patients with or without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based randomized clinical trials. Data on subgroups of ACS or elective PCI were obtained by published reports or trial investigators. A total of 10 193 patients from four NOAC trials were analysed, of whom 5675 presenting with ACS (DAT = 3063 vs. TAT = 2612) and 4518 with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD; DAT = 2421 vs. TAT = 2097). The primary safety endpoint of ISTH major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding was reduced with DAT compared with TAT in both ACS (12.2% vs. 19.4%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) and SCAD (14.6% vs. 22.0%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85; P = 0.0008; I2 = 66%), without interaction (P-int = 0.54). Findings were consistent for secondary bleeding endpoints, including intra-cranial haemorrhage. In both subgroups, there was no difference between DAT and TAT for all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or stroke. Myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were numerically higher with DAT vs. TAT consistently in ACS and SCAD (P-int = 0.60 and 0.86, respectively). Findings were confirmed by multiple sensitivity analyses, including a separate analysis on dabigatran regimens and a restriction to PCI population. CONCLUSIONS: DAT, compared with TAT, is associated with lower bleeding risks, including intra-cranial haemorrhage, and a small non-significant excess of cardiac ischaemic events in both patients with or without ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gargiulo et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation with or without acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=10,193). Double antithrombotic therapy (DAT) vs. Triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) was evaluated on ISTH major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (ACS subgroup) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56-0.71, p=<0.0001). Double antithrombotic therapy reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared with triple therapy in AF patients with ACS (RR 0.63; P<0.0001) and stable CAD (RR 0.68; P=0.0008).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: