Antiplatelet Therapy and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Analysis of Current Evidence With a Focus on Acute Coronary Syndrome.

This review was undertaken to summarize and discuss the current evidence around antiplatelet therapy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Aspirin (ASA) monotherapy remains the standard of care among patients before and after CABG. The role of more intense antiplatelet therapy-specifically, P2Y12 inhibitors-in improving clinical outcomes and graft patency is becoming increasingly apparent. As such, we provide an overview of a variety of antiplatelet regimens. The review discusses the evidence around preoperative management of antiplatelet therapies, with a particular focus on timing of cessation. It also evaluates the current literature to elucidate the best antiplatelet therapy regimen after CABG, focusing on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Whenever possible, data are presented from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Although guidelines recommend use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after CABG for patients with ACS, available evidence is limited to small RCTs, and meta-analyses are of substudies of larger RCTs. There is also considerable heterogeneity in patient population of these studies; a significant number of patients underwent off-pump CABG (OPCAB) in trials that demonstrate graft-patency benefit with DAPT. With this limited evidence, DAPT remains underused in the CABG population, even among patients presenting after ACS.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients Undergoing Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend peri-cardioversion anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF undergoing cardioversion. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing DOACs to VKAs in patients undergoing cardioversion for AF. We performed title, abstract, and full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random effects model and evaluated the overall quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. RESULTS: We identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5203) and 21 observational studies (n = 11,855). The three RCTs and four observational studies were at low risk of bias. In RCTs (mean follow-up, 30 days), thromboembolic events occurred in 0.18% of patients receiving DOACs, as compared with 0.55% receiving VKAs (relative risk [RR] 0.40, 95% CI [0.13, 1.24], moderate quality). Major bleeding occurred in 0.42% of patients receiving DOACs as compared with 0.64% receiving VKAs (RR 0.62, 95% CI [0.28, 1.35], moderate quality), and death occurred in 0.28% of patients receiving DOACs as compared with 0.38% receiving VKAs (RR 0.70, 95% CI [0.23, 2.10], low quality). Confidence in the estimates of effect for observational studies was very low. CONCLUSION: DOACs peri-cardioversion in patients with AF appears safe from both a bleeding and thromboembolic risk perspective. Available evidence supports the use of DOACs as standard of care peri-cardioversion in patients with AF.