Dual versus triple antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: the prospective multicentre WOEST 2 Study.

BACKGROUND: For patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), European guidelines have recently changed their recommendations to dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT; P2Y12 inhibitor and OAC) without aspirin. AIMS: The prospective WOEST 2 registry was designed to obtain contemporary real-world data on antithrombotic regimens and related outcomes after PCI in patients with an indication for OAC. METHODS: In this analysis, we compare DAT (P2Y12 inhibitor and OAC) to triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT; aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitor, and OAC) on thrombotic and bleeding outcomes after one year. Clinically relevant bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification (BARC) grade 2, 3, or 5; major bleeding as BARC grade 3 or 5. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, ischaemic stroke, and transient ischaemic attack. RESULTS: A total of 1,075 patients were included between 2014 and 2021. Patients used OAC for atrial fibrillation (93.6%) or mechanical heart valve prosthesis (4.7%). Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) were prescribed in 53.1% and vitamin K antagonists in 46.9% of patients. At discharge, 60.9% received DAT, and 39.1% TAT. DAT was associated with less clinically relevant and similar major bleeding (16.8% vs 23.4%; p<0.01 and 7.6% vs 7.7%, not significant), compared to TAT. The difference in MACCE between the two groups was not statistically significant (12.4% vs 9.7%; p=0.17). Multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Dual antithrombotic therapy is associated with a substantially lower risk of clinically relevant bleeding without a statistically significant penalty in ischaemic events.

Antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the effects of antiplatelets on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), treated and not-treated with oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until September 2020. From 5446 citations, we selected randomized trials allocating patients with AF to antiplatelet therapy vs. control. We applied random-effects models for meta-analysis and assessed potential effect modification with background anticoagulation use. Eighteen trials including 21 518 participants met our prespecified eligibility criteria. In 10 studies without background anticoagulation, antiplatelets reduced all-cause stroke [486/6165 (events/patients) vs. 621/6061; risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.86, I2 = 0%]. In eight studies with background anticoagulation, there was a signal for an increase in all-cause stroke with antiplatelets (97/4608 vs. 72/4684; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.98-1.79, I2 = 0%, P-value for interaction <0.001). A similar pattern emerged for ischaemic stroke. Irrespective of background anticoagulation use, antiplatelets increased major bleeding (509/10 402 vs. 328/10 496; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.35-1.77, I2 = 0%) and intracranial haemorrhage (107/10 221 vs. 65/10 232; RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.20-2.24, I2 = 0%), and reduced myocardial infarction (201/9679 vs. 260/9751; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, I2 = 0%, all P-values for interaction ≥0.36). Antiplatelets did not affect mortality (1221/10 299 vs. 1211/10 287; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17, I2 = 29%, P-value for interaction = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF not receiving oral anticoagulation, antiplatelet therapy modestly reduced stroke. There was a corresponding signal for harm when used on top of anticoagulation. Irrespective of background anticoagulation use, antiplatelet therapy significantly increased bleeding, moderately reduced myocardial infarction, and did not affect mortality.

Cost Effectiveness of a CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Strategy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from the POPular Genetics Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The POPular Genetics trial demonstrated that a CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor strategy reduced bleeding rates compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel without increasing thrombotic event rates after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: A 1-year decision tree based on the POPular Genetics trial in combination with a lifelong Markov model was developed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between a genotype-guided and a standard P2Y12 inhibitor strategy in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare system perspective. Within-trial survival and utility data were combined with lifetime projections to evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness for a cohort of 1000 patients. Costs and utilities were discounted at 4 and 1.5%, respectively, according to Dutch guidelines for health economic studies. Besides deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, several scenario analyses were also conducted (different time horizons, different discount rates, equal prices for P2Y12 inhibitors, and equal distribution of thrombotic events between the two strategies). RESULTS: Base-case analysis with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 subjects demonstrated 8.98 QALYs gained and €725,550.69 in cost savings for the genotype-guided strategy (dominant). The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the model and the cost-effectiveness results. In scenario analyses, the genotype-guided strategy remained dominant. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy compared with standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel resulted in QALYs gained and cost savings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01761786, Netherlands trial register number: NL2872.

Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor or Prasugrel After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention According to CYP2C19 Genotype: A POPular Genetics Subanalysis.

[Figure: see text].

Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents vs bare metal stents in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) vs bare-metal stents (BMS) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. METHODS: We systematically searched 5 engines until May 2019 for cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were major bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) or stent thrombosis. Effects of inverse variance random meta-analyses were described with relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also stratified analyses by type (triple [TAT] vs dual [DAT]) and duration (short-vs long-term) of antithrombotic therapy. RESULTS: Ten studies (3 RCTs; 7 cohorts) including 10,353 patients (DES: 59.6%) were identified. DES did not show higher risk of major bleeding than BMS (5.6% vs 6.9%, RR 1.07; 95%CI, 0.89-1.28, p = 0.47; I2 = 0%) or MACE (12% vs 13.6%; RR 0.96; 95%CI 0.81-1.13, p = 0.60; I2 = 44%). Although, DES almost decreased TVR risk (6.4% vs 8.4%, RR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.61-1.01, p = 0.06; I2 = 15%). Stratified analyses by type and duration of antithrombotic therapy showed no differences in major bleeding or MACE between both types of stents. In DES, long-term TAT showed higher major bleeding risk than long-term DAT (7.7% vs 4.7%, RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.08-2.03, p = 0.01; I2 = 12%). For both types of stents, MACE risk was similar between TAT and DAT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF undergoing PCI, DES had similar rate of major bleeding and MACE than BMS. DAT seems to be a safer antithrombotic therapy compared with TAT.

A Genotype-Guided Strategy for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Primary PCI.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benefit from genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial in which patients undergoing primary PCI with stent implantation were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a P2Y12 inhibitor on the basis of early CYP2C19 genetic testing (genotype-guided group) or standard treatment with either ticagrelor or prasugrel (standard-treatment group) for 12 months. In the genotype-guided group, carriers of CYP2C19*2 or CYP2C19*3 loss-of-function alleles received ticagrelor or prasugrel, and noncarriers received clopidogrel. The two primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events - defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding defined according to Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) criteria - at 12 months (primary combined outcome; tested for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points for the absolute difference) and PLATO major or minor bleeding at 12 months (primary bleeding outcome). RESULTS: For the primary analysis, 2488 patients were included: 1242 in the genotype-guided group and 1246 in the standard-treatment group. The primary combined outcome occurred in 63 patients (5.1%) in the genotype-guided group and in 73 patients (5.9%) in the standard-treatment group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0 to 0.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary bleeding outcome occurred in 122 patients (9.8%) in the genotype-guided group and in 156 patients (12.5%) in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy for selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy was noninferior to standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel at 12 months with respect to thrombotic events and resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular Genetics ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01761786; Netherlands Trial Register number, NL2872.).

Efficacy and Safety of the Use of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Concomitant Aspirin Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as the first-choice therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation because these drugs have several benefits over the vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). It is unknown whether these benefits remain when NOACs have to be combined with aspirin therapy. To assess the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with VKAs in patients with atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy, we conducted a systematic review and study-based meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic electronic literature search was done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials for studies including published data of patients ≥18 years of age with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, randomized to either VKAs or NOACs, or receiving aspirin therapy at any time during the study that report all-cause stroke or systemic embolism, vascular death, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage as an outcome. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome were extracted from the individual studies and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: This study-based meta-analysis was restricted to the subgroups of patients on aspirin therapy (n=21 722) from 4 randomized controlled trials comparing VKAs and NOACs (n=71 681) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In this meta-analysis including patients on mainly low-dose aspirin, NOACs were found to be more effective (outcome of stroke or systemic embolism: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; vascular death: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.93) and as safe as VKAs with respect to major bleeding (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.01). NOACs were safer with respect to the reduction of intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: This study-based meta-analysis shows that it may be both safer and more effective to use NOACs compared with VKAs to treat patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy.

Optimal antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary stents: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. This review is an update of a previous review and aims to summarize new published data regarding the management of this group of atrial fibrillation patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data report an underuse of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI while indicated. However, tools for risk assessment and thus better guidance for decision-making are lacking, especially for elderly atrial fibrillation patients. New evidence suggests that the combination of oral anticoagulation and clopidogrel without aspirin may improve clinical outcomes in comparison with triple therapy; however, there is little data regarding the role of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants and newer P2Y12 inhibitors in these regimens. SUMMARY: Despite accumulating data on the assessment of bleeding and thrombotic risk, the management of elderly atrial fibrillation patients, new treatment regimens, and the role of more potent antithrombotic agents, the optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation after PCI is still unclear. In the meantime, careful assessment of both thrombotic and bleeding risk and individualized decision-making are paramount to ensure the best patient outcomes.

Triple therapy for atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require treatment with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and additional dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (DAPT), i.e. triple therapy. However, triple therapy produces a high annual bleeding risk outweighing the benefits. To improve safety of antithrombotic treatment in these patients, the risks and benefits of all possible treatment options should be evaluated. This review provides an overview of current guidelines and new evidence for optimizing treatment of atrial fibrillation patients with an indication for combined treatment with OAC and DAPT. RECENT FINDINGS: To reduce bleeding risks during PCI, new evidence suggests that uninterrupted anticoagulation, radial access and the use of newer-generation drug eluting stent (DES) should be preferred. The use of glycoprotein receptor inhibitors should be avoided. After PCI, omitting aspirin seems to result in less bleeding compared with triple therapy, and the use of proton pump inhibitors further reduces bleeding risk. SUMMARY: These new strategies seem to further improve the safety of antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI.

The effect of acenocoumarol on the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel.

Patients exhibiting high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) are at an increased risk of atherothrombotic events following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The use of concomitant medication which is metabolised by the hepatic cytochrome P450 system, such as phenprocoumon, is associated with HPR. We assessed the level of platelet reactivity on clopidogrel in patients who received concomitant treatment with acenocoumarol (another coumarin derivative). Patients scheduled for PCI were included in a prospective, single centre, observational registry. Patients who were adequately pre-treated with clopidogrel were eligible for this analysis, which included 1,582 patients, of whom 104 patients (6.6%) received concomitant acenocoumarol treatment. Platelet reactivity, as measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and expressed in P2Y12 Reaction Units (PRU), was significantly higher in patients on concomitant acenocoumarol treatment (mean PRU 229 ± 88 vs 187 ± 95; p < 0.001). In patients with concomitant acenocoumarol use, the proportion of patients with HPR was higher, defined as PRU > 208 (57.7% vs 41.1%; p=0.001) and PRU ≥ 236 (49.0% vs 31.4%; p< 0.001). In multivariable analysis, concomitant acenocoumarol use was independently associated with a higher PRU and the occurrence of HPR defined as PRU ≥ 236 (OR 2.00, [1.07-3.79]), but not with HPR defined as PRU > 208 (OR 1.37, [0.74-2.54]). PRU also was significantly increased after 1:1 propensity matching (+28.2; p < 0.001). As this was an observational study, confounding by indication cannot be excluded, although multivariable analyses and propensity matching were performed. The impact of the findings from this hypothesis-generating study on clinical outcome requires further investigation.

Uninterrupted oral anticoagulation versus bridging in patients with long-term oral anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention: subgroup analysis from the WOEST trial.

AIMS: To investigate the optimal periprocedural antithrombotic strategy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) who require percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS: The WOEST study was a randomised controlled trial which recruited 573 patients on long-term OAC who underwent PCI. The periprocedural treatment strategy was left to the operator's discretion. To assess the safety and feasibility of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (UAC) and bridging therapy (BT), bleeding complications and MACCE were assessed in patients treated according to UAC (n=241) and BT (n=322) regimen. After 30 days, as well as after one year, there were no significant differences in bleeding complications (HR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.77-1.69, p=0.51, and HR 1.26, 95% CI: 0.94-1.69, p=0.12, respectively) and MACCE. MACCE tended to be less frequent in the UAC group (respectively HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.15-1.51, p=0.21, and HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.46-1.14, p=0.16). Additionally, adjustment with a propensity score revealed no significant differences. Periprocedural INR was not associated with bleeding or MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: In the WOEST study, UAC was not associated with an increase of bleeding or MACCE compared to bridging therapy. This is the largest study up to now to support the current guidelines. The WOEST trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769938.

Triple therapy for atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention: a contemporary review.

Chronic oral anticoagulant therapy is recommended (class I) in patients with mechanical heart valves and in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category) score ≥1. When these patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting, treatment with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor also becomes indicated. Before 2014, guidelines recommended the use of triple therapy (vitamin K antagonists, aspirin, and clopidogrel) for these patients. However, major bleeding is increasingly recognized as the Achilles' heel of the triple therapy regimen. Lately, various studies have investigated this topic, including a prospective randomized trial, and the evidence for adding aspirin to the regimen of vitamin K antagonists and clopidogrel seems to be weakened. In this group of patients, the challenge is finding the optimal equilibrium to prevent thromboembolic events, such as stent thrombosis and thromboembolic stroke, without increasing bleeding risk.

CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients-Rationale and design of the Patient Outcome after primary PCI (POPular) Genetics study.

RATIONALE: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), the use of dual antiplatelet therapy is essential to prevent atherothrombotic complications. Therefore, patients are treated with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor. Clopidogrel, however, shows a major interindividual variation in antiplatelet effect, which is correlated to an increase in atherothrombotic events in patients with high platelet reactivity. This interindividual variation is partly a result of CYP2C19 genetic variants. Ticagrelor and prasugrel reduce atherothrombotic events but increase bleeding rate and drug costs, as compared with clopidogrel. CYP2C19-based tailoring of antiplatelet therapy might be beneficial to STEMI patients. STUDY DESIGN: POPular Genetics (NCT01761786) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial involving 2,700 STEMI patients who undergo pPCI. Patients are randomized to CYP2C19 genotyping or routine ticagrelor or prasugrel treatment. In the genotyping group, *1/*1 (wild-type) patients receive clopidogrel, and patients carrying 1 or 2 *2 or *3 loss-of-function alleles receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary net clinical benefit end point is the composite of death, (recurrent) myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding at 1 year. Primary safety end point is the composite of (PLATO) major and minor bleeding. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life will be assessed by calculating quality-adjusted life-years, net costs per life-year, and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSION: The POPular Genetics study is the first large-scale trial comparing CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy to a nontailored strategy in terms of net clinical benefit, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: If percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is required in patients taking oral anticoagulants, antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is indicated, but such triple therapy increases the risk of serious bleeding. We investigated the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel alone compared with clopidogrel plus aspirin. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial in 15 centres in Belgium and the Netherlands. From November, 2008, to November, 2011, adults receiving oral anticoagulants and undergoing PCI were assigned clopidogrel alone (double therapy) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (triple therapy). The primary outcome was any bleeding episode within 1 year of PCI, assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769938. FINDINGS: 573 patients were enrolled and 1-year data were available for 279 (98·2%) patients assigned double therapy and 284 (98·3%) assigned triple therapy. Mean ages were 70·3 (SD 7·0) years and 69·5 (8·0) years, respectively. Bleeding episodes were seen in 54 (19·4%) patients receiving double therapy and in 126 (44·4%) receiving triple therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·26-0·50, p<0·0001). In the double-therapy group, six (2·2%) patients had multiple bleeding events, compared with 34 (12·0%) in the triple-therapy group. 11 (3·9%) patients receiving double therapy required at least one blood transfusion, compared with 27 (9·5%) patients in the triple-therapy group (odds ratio from Kaplan-Meier curve 0·39, 95% CI 0·17-0·84, p=0·011). INTERPRETATION: Use of clopiogrel without aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding complications and no increase in the rate of thrombotic events. FUNDING: Antonius Ziekenhuis Foundation, Strect Foundation.