Long-term antithrombotic therapy after coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation. A nationwide observational study from the SWEDEHEART registry.

AIMS: To provide data guiding long-term antithrombotic therapy after coronary artery by-pass grafting (CABG) in patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: From the SWEDEHEART registry, we included all patients, between January 2006 and September 2016, with preoperative AF and CHA2DS2-VASC score ≥2, undergoing CABG. Based on dispensed prescriptions 12 to 18 months after CABG, patients were divided in 3 groups: use of platelet inhibitors (PI) only, oral anticoagulant (OAC) only or a combination of OAC + PI. Outcomes were: Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, [all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke]), net adverse clinical events (NACE, [MACCE or bleeding]) and the individual components of NACE. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for the non-randomized study design. Among 2,564 patients, 1,040 (41%) were treated with PI alone, 1,064 (41%) with OAC alone, and 460 (18%) with PI + OAC. Treatment with PI alone was associated with higher risk for MACCE (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.09-1.88), driven by higher risk for stroke and MI, compared with OAC alone. Treatment with PI + OAC, was associated with higher risk for NACE (adjusted HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.06-1.85), driven by higher risk for bleeds, compared with OAC alone. CONCLUSION: In this real-world observational study, a high proportion of patients with AF, undergoing CABG, did not receive a long-term OAC therapy. Treatment with OAC alone was associated with a net clinical benefit, compared with PI alone or PI + OAC.

Real-World Data on Potent P2Y12 Inhibition in Patients with Suspected Chronic Coronary Syndrome, Referred for Coronary Angiography.

INTRODUCTION: Potential benefit with potent platelet inhibition in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been discussed. The aim of this study was to compare a potent P2Y12 inhibition strategy using ticagrelor with clopidogrel in CCS patients referred for coronary angiography (CA) and PCI if feasible. METHODS: In this retrospective real-world study, patients referred for outpatient CA due to suspected CCS were included. To adjust for group differences, a propensity score reflecting the probability of being treated with ticagrelor was calculated and added to the logistic regression outcome model. RESULTS: In total, 1,003 patients were included in the primary analysis (577 treated with clopidogrel and 426 with ticagrelor). Among clopidogrel-treated patients, 132 (22.9%) experienced a bleeding complication compared with 93 (21.8%) among ticagrelor-treated patients, with no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.70). There was no difference in bleeding severity. Furthermore, we observed no statistically significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE [death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or stroke]) (1.2% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.17). A subgroup analysis restricted to patients undergoing PCI ad hoc displayed a similar pattern. Also, patients undergoing CA without PCI ad hoc frequently experienced a bleeding complication, with no difference between the two treatments (21.0% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.27). Propensity score adjusted analyses confirmed the results. DISCUSSION: In patients with CCS referred for CA and PCI if feasible, a more potent P2Y12 inhibition strategy with ticagrelor was not associated with bleeding complications or MACE compared with clopidogrel.

Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare interrupted and uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy (I-OAC vs. U-OAC) in patients on OAC undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal peri-procedural management of OAC-treated patients. METHODS: In the SWEDEHEART registry, all patients on OAC who were admitted acutely and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography with a diagnostic procedure, from 2005 to 2017, were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeds at 120 days. Propensity score was used to adjust for the nonrandomized treatment selection. RESULTS: The study included 6,485 patients: 3,322 in the I-OAC group and 3,163 in the U-OAC group. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was 8.2% (269 events) versus 8.2% (254 events) in the I-OAC and the U-OAC groups, respectively. The adjusted risk for MACCE did not differ between the groups (I-OAC vs. U-OAC hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.12). Similarly, no difference was found in the risk for MACCE or bleeds (12.6% vs. 12.9%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.07). The risk for major or minor in-hospital bleeds did not differ between the groups. However, U-OAC was associated with a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization: 4 (3 to 7) days versus 5 (3 to 8) days; p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: I-OAC and U-OAC were associated with equivalent risk for MACCE and bleeding complications. An U-OAC strategy was associated with shorter length of hospitalization. These data support U-OAC as the preferable strategy in patients on OAC undergoing coronary intervention.