Mortality of Escalation and Modulation Antithrombotic Therapy in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The net clinical benefit of antithrombotic therapy (ATT) reflects the concomitant effects of bleeding and ischemic events. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the overall effect of the modulation or escalation of ATT on all-cause mortality as well as ischemic and bleeding events. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing escalation or modulation of ATT versus standard ATT in patients with coronary artery disease. A total of 32 studies with 160,659 subjects were enrolled in this analysis. RESULTS: Neither escalation nor modulation of ATT has significant effect on all-cause mortality (escalation: relative risk [RR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.04; modulation: RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81-1.01). Compared with standard ATT therapy, escalation of ATT was associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI; RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.94), but had a higher risk of major or minor bleeding (RR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.15-1.66). Modulation of ATT was associated with a similar risk of MI (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.96-1.19), but a reduced risk for major or minor bleeding (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.51-0.66). Meta-regression combining both escalation and modulation studies found that the heterogeneity of all-cause mortality was mainly attributed to the heterogeneity of major or minor bleeding (adjusted R-squared = 100.00%, p = 0.004), but not to MI. CONCLUSION: Either escalation or modulation of ATT has little benefit in all-cause mortality. The variability of the treatment effects on all-cause mortality was mainly attributed to the variability of major or minor bleeding, but not to MI.

Stroke of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis sought to investigate the risk of stroke with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials from January 1995 to March 2020. Studies were retrieved if they reported data of stroke for patients with CAD and were randomized to receive intensive versus conservative antithrombotic therapies, including antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant (OAC). Analyses were pooled by random-effects modeling. A total of 42 studies with 301,547subjects were enrolled in this analysis. RESULTS: Intensive antithrombotic therapy significantly reduced risk of all stroke (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.94) and ischemic stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91), but increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.00-1.86) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.81). Subgroup analyses indicated that OAC yields more benefit to all stroke than antiplatelet therapy (OAC: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92; Antiplatelet: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97; Between-group heterogeneity P value = 0.030). The benefit of antiplatelet therapy on all stroke and ischemic stroke were mainly driven by the studies comparing longer versus shorter duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (All stroke: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95; ischemic stroke: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Among CAD patients who have already received antiplatelet therapy, either strengthening antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatments significantly reduced all stroke, mainly due to the reduction of ischemic stroke, although it increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage. OAC yields more benefit to all stroke than antiplatelet therapy.

Off-hours admission does not impact outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and with a first medical contact-to-device time within 90 min.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether the outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) during off-hours are as favorable as those treated during on-hours, especially those with a first medical contact-to-device (FMC-to-device) time within 90 min. We aimed to determine whether off-hours admission impacted late outcomes in patients undergoing PPCI and with an FMC-to-device time ≤90 min. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included 670 STEMI patients who underwent successful PPCI and had an FMC-to-device time ≤90 min from 19 chest pain centers in Beijing from January 2018 to December 2018. Patients were divided into on-hours group and off-hours group based on their arrival time. Baseline characteristics, clinical data, and key time intervals during treatment were collected from the Quality Control & Improvement Center of Cardiovascular Intervention of Beijing by the "Heart and Brain Green Channel" app. RESULTS: Overall, the median age of the patients was 58.8 years and 19.9% (133/670) were female. Of these, 296 (44.2%) patients underwent PPCI during on-hours and 374 (55.8%) patients underwent PPCI during off-hours. Compared with the on-hours group, the off-hours group had a longer FMC-to-device time and fewer patients with FMC-to-device time ≤60 min (P < 0.05). During the mean follow-up period of 24 months, a total of 64 (9.6%) participants experienced a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), with 28 (9.1%) in the on-hours group and 36 (9.6%) in the off-hours group (P > 0.05). According to the Cox regression analyses, off-hours admission was not a predictor of 2-year MACEs (P = 0.788). Similarly, the Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the risks of a MACE, all-cause death, reinfarction, and target vessel revascularization were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world, multicenter retrospective study demonstrated that for STEMI patients who underwent PPCI within 90 min, off-hours admission was safe, with no difference in the risk of 2-year MACEs compared with those with on-hours admission.