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.

Rationale and design of POPular-TAVI: antiPlatelet therapy fOr Patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Despite improving experience and techniques, ischemic and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain prevalent and impair survival. Current guidelines recommend the temporary addition of clopidogrel in the initial period after TAVI to prevent thromboembolic events. However, explorative studies suggest that this is associated with a higher rate of major bleeding without a decrease in thromboembolic complications. METHODS: The POPular TAVI trial is a prospective randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter clinical trial to test the hypothesis that monotherapy with aspirin or oral anticoagulation (OAC) after TAVI is safer than the addition of clopidogrel for 3 months, without compromising clinical benefit. This trial encompasses 2 cohorts: cohort A, patients are randomized 1:1 to aspirin vs aspirin + clopidogrel, and cohort B, patients on OAC therapy are randomized 1:1 to OAC vs OAC + clopidogrel. Primary outcome is freedom from non-procedure-related bleeding at 1 year. Secondary net-clinical benefit outcome is freedom from the composite of cardiovascular death, non-procedural-related bleeding, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The primary outcome is analyzed for superiority, whereas the secondary outcome is analyzed for noninferiority. Recruitment began in February 2014, and the trial will continue until a total of 1,000 patients (684 expected in cohort A and 316 in cohort B) are included and followed up for 1 year. SUMMARY: The POPular TAVI trial (NCT02247128) is the first large randomized controlled trial to test if monotherapy with aspirin or OAC vs additional clopidogrel after TAVI reduces bleeding with a favorable net-clinical benefit.

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.

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.

Economic evaluation of the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation on antiplatelet therapy: a modelling analysis using the healthcare system in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have consistently demonstrated superior efficacy in terms of stroke prevention and safety in terms of bleeding over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential use of NOACs in AF patients requiring antiplatelet therapy (APT) has only been assessed in small meta-analyses reporting consistent benefits of NOACs over VKAs. However, the prescription costs of NOACs are higher than those of VKAs. The aim of his study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF also requiring APT with the Dutch healthcare system used as a surrogate of many European healthcare systems. METHODS AND RESULTS: A decision tree was constructed to analyse the CE of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with non-valvular AF with an indication for APT over a horizon of 1 year. Beside the base-case analysis, univariate probabilistic sensitivity and two sensitivity analyses were performed: first, we assessed the impact of VKA home monitoring; second, we varied the NOACs price assuming patent expiration. Use of NOACs instead of VKA is associated with a health gain of 0.0171 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and with an incremental cost of €357, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €20 919, which is almost equal to the generally accepted CE threshold of €20 000 used in the Netherlands. The probability that NOACs are cost-effective at a conservative willingness-to-pay threshold of €20 000 per QALY was 50%. Introducing home monitoring increased VKAs costs so much that NOACs became the dominant option (less costly and more effective). Price drops associated to patent expiration of NOACs increased its CE. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing APT. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations.

Antithrombotic treatment in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment option for symptomatic patients with severe aortic valvular disease who are not suitable for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement. Despite improving experience and techniques, ischaemic and bleeding complications after TAVI remain prevalent and impair survival in this generally old and comorbid-rich population. Due to changing aetiology of complications over time, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after TAVI should be carefully balanced. Empirically, a dual antiplatelet strategy is generally used after TAVI for patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC; e. g. atrial fibrillation, mechanical mitral valve prosthesis), including aspirin and a thienopyridine. For patients on OAC, a combination of OAC and aspirin or thienopyridine is generally used. This review shows that current registries are unfit to directly compare antithrombotic regimens. Small exploring studies suggest that additional clopidogrel after TAVI only affects bleeding and not ischemic complications. However, these studies are lack in quality in terms of Cochrane criteria. Currently, three randomised controlled trials are recruiting to gather more knowledge about the effects of clopidogrel after TAVI.