RESUMO
One of the most common conundrums in all cardiovascular medicine pertains to the care of patients with atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention, because of both dual antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulant therapy would seem to be necessary to reduce risks of stent thrombosis and thromboembolism, respectively, but also with an inevitable trade-off of more bleeding. Patients who require triple therapy are at high risk of both ischaemia and bleeding; therefore, defining a personalised secondary prevention strategy aimed at achieving the best net clinical benefit is essential. The good news is that we have entered an era of increased perceived and tangible safety that applies to both non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulants and newer drug-eluting stents. Even if the consistency across the major trials and the significantly lower risk of bleeding with dual therapy make it hard to argue that triple therapy should be used routinely, the aggregate evidence suggests that the net clinical benefit of dual therapy should give cardiologists confidence to drop aspirin when they are using a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy with drug-eluting stents. Waiting for more randomised trials and meta-analyses, for the time being, in patients not in clinical trials, full-dose oral triple therapy with dual antiplatelet agents and full-dose anticoagulation should be avoided as a routine practice, and the choice of the proper, that is, safer, oral anticoagulant, namely a non-vitamin K-antagonist oral anticoagulant, may be regarded by now as an additional bleeding avoiding strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.