Next Article in Journal
Diagnosis of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) Is Independently Associated with Cardiovascular Risk in a Large Austrian Screening Cohort
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Natural Compounds on Neurodegenerative Disorders: From Preclinical to Pharmacotherapeutics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 9
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm9041062
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

by
Su-Kiat Chua
1,2,3,
Lung-Ching Chen
2,3,
Kou-Gi Shyu
2,3,
Jun-Jack Cheng
2,3,
Huei-Fong Hung
2,3,
Chiung-Zuan Chiu
2,3,*,† and
Chiu-Mei Lin
1,4,*,†
1
School of Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City 242, Taiwan
2
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei 111, Taiwan
3
Department of Internal Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei 111, Taiwan
4
Department of Emergency Medicine, Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei 111, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Both authors made equal contributions to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(4), 1062; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041062
Submission received: 6 March 2020 / Revised: 1 April 2020 / Accepted: 3 April 2020 / Published: 8 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Up to 10% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews for randomized control trials that studied the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies in these patients. Six studies, including 12,158 patients were included. Compared to that in the triple antithrombotic therapy group (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding was significantly reduced in the dual antithrombotic therapy (non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) plus P2Y12 inhibitor) group by 47% (Odds ratio (OR), 0.53; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.35–0.78; I2 = 0%). Besides, NOAC plus a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less intracranial hemorrhage compared to VKA plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR: 0.20, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.77). There was no significant difference in the trial-defined major adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or stent thrombosis among all antithrombotic strategies. In conclusion, antithrombotic strategy of NOACs plus P2Y12 inhibitor is safer than, and as effective as, the strategies including aspirin when used in AF patients undergoing PCI.

1. Introduction

Up to 30% of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and approximately 10% of them undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [1]. For physicians managing AF and concomitant ischemic heart disease, particularly acute coronary syndrome (ACS) following PCI, it is challenging to determine which antithrombotic strategies provide the best balance of safety and efficacy [2]. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are necessary to prevent stroke in patients with AF [2,3], whereas dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with P2Y12 inhibitors and aspirin is required to prevent stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI [4,5]. Current guidelines for AF patients undergoing PCI recommend using triple thrombotic therapy, which is a combination of VKA or NOAC with DAPT to reduce the risk of cardioembolic and coronary thrombotic complications [4,5]. However, triple thrombotic therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding complications [6,7].
In recent years, a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have attempted to compare the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies after PCI for stable CAD or ACS in patients with AF [8,9,10,11,12]. In addition, several meta-analyses have concluded that administering dual antithrombotic therapy with NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitors results in fewer major bleeding events, but similar efficacy compared to triple therapy, including VKA or NOAC with DAPT [13,14,15]. However, most of these meta-analyses did not include the latest reported edoxaban-based antithrombotic regimen in patients with AF following the successful percutaneous coronary intervention (ENTRUST-AF PCI) trial, which was found to be insufficient to detect differences in safety outcome between the antithrombotic strategies with and without aspirin in such patients [16]. Furthermore, these previous studies are complemented by a similar risk of thromboembolic events and major cardiovascular events (MACEs) between dual and triple antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, it is not clear how different classes of oral anticoagulant (OAC), such as VKA or NOAC, will affect the safety and efficacy outcomes in AF patients undergoing PCI. To address the above issues and reduce the selection bias by observational studies, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis of RCTs with the goal of analyzing antithrombotic strategies in this high-risk population.
In this network meta-analysis, simultaneous comparisons of VKA or NOAC with single versus dual antiplatelet therapy were analyzed for safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with AF undergoing PCI. In addition, we compared our findings with previous meta-analyses that compared dual and triple antithrombotic therapy in AF patients undergoing PCI.

2. Method

2.1. Study Selection, Search Strategy and Outcome Measures

This systematic review and network meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [17]. The inclusion criteria for this network meta-analysis were as follow: (1) all relevant Phase 3 RCTs comparing dual antithrombotic therapy (defined as VKA or NOAC with single antiplatelet agent [SAPT]) versus triple antithrombotic therapy (defined as VKA or NOAC with DAPT) in patients with AF undergoing PCI; (2) reported major and minor bleeding using thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI), the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and TPA for Occluded Arteries definition for bleeding (GUSTO), or the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification; (3) reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis; and (4) at least 6 months follow-up period. The primary exclusion criteria were observational studies, registry data, editorials, case series, crossover trials, duplicate studies, and non-original data.
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database through December of 2019 using the following key words in various combinations: “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “acute coronary syndrome”, “coronary angioplasty”, “coronary stenting”, “triple antithrombotic therapy”, “dual antithrombotic therapy”, “anticoagulant”, “antiplatelet”, “vitamin K antagonists”, “warfarin”, “dabigatran”, “rivaroxaban”, “apixaban”, “edoxaban”, “aspirin”, “clopidogrel”, “atrial fibrillation”, and “randomized clinical trial”. Two investigators (SKC, JJC) independently reviewed the titles or abstracts of the studies to determine whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved via consensus and by a third investigator (LCC).
We extracted information from the enrolled RCTs to evaluate the following outcomes: (1) TIMI major bleeding, (2) TIMI minor bleeding, (3) trial-defined safety outcome, (4) intracranial hemorrhage, (5) trial-defined MACE, (6) all-cause mortality, (7) cardiovascular death, (8) myocardial infarction (MI), (9) stroke, and (10) stent thrombosis.

2.2. Statistical Analysis and Risk of Bias

We used the number of patients randomized for the intention-to-treat sample size. A Bayesian network random effect meta-analysis was used to compare the effects of four antithrombotic strategies (VKA and DAPT, VKA and SAPT, NOAC and DAPT, and NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitors) for each outcome. The pooled odds ratio (ORs) and their 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) were estimated for both direct and indirect comparisons. Heterogeneity across studies was also assessed using the Cochrane Q test and Higgins I2 statistics. The Higgins I2 statistics was used to determine the degree heterogeneity (I2 <25%—low, 25–50%—moderate, and >50%—high degree of heterogeneity) among the enrolled studies. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was utilized to obtain estimates of posterior distribution. The MCMC model was repeated 50,000 times to allow for convergence, and 20,000 sample burn-in was performed to produce the probability statements for each analysis. Convergence of iterations was evaluated using Gelman–Rubin–Brooke statistic and trace plots. The diagnostics for the network meta-analysis models under the assumption of evidence consistency for the above 10 outcomes showed that the four MCMC chains mixed well regardless of their different starting points. Additionally, trace plots showed that the MCMC chains converged well (Supplementary Materials Figure S1). All statistical analyses were performed with R (V.3.6.1) and the GeMTC (V.0.8-2) package, along with the Markov Chain Monte Carlo engine JAGS (V.3.4.0).

3. Results

3.1. Enrollment of Studies

In total, we identified 305 studies. Of these, 200 were deemed irrelevant after title and abstract screening, and 105 were assessed for eligibility using the full text (Figure 1). Finally, six studies met the inclusion criteria [8,9,10,11,12,16]. Of these, the ISAR-TRIPLE trial had a different study design compared to the others in that both arms of the study participants were treated with the same triple therapy for the first six weeks, after which, the dual therapy group received VKA and aspirin, while the triple therapy group received VKA and DAPT. Therefore, to ensure valid comparisons, only the event data from the landmark analysis of the ISAR-TRIPLE trial was analyzed in our network meta-analysis. All the enrolled patients in WOEST and ISAR-TRIPLE studies used clopidogrel plus aspirin as DAPT, wherein PIONEER, RE-DUAL PCI, AGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI, more than 90% of the patients received clopidogrel plus aspirin, only less than 10% received ticagrelor or prasugrel [8,9,10,11,12,16].
The trial design, treatment strategies, and safety and efficacy outcomes of the six included RCTs are summarized in Supplementary Materials Tables S1 and S2. All RCTs were judged to be at a low risk of bias.

3.2. Structure of the Network Meta-Analysis

The network of antithrombotic strategies used in the main analysis is summarized in Figure 2. Four antithrombotic strategies, VKA with DAPT, VKA with aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor, NOAC with DAPT, and NOAC with a P2Y12 inhibitor, were compared in our network meta-analysis. For a safety and efficacy analysis, we compared four NOACs, including rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban in this network meta-analysis.

3.3. Network Meta-Analysis Safety Outcomes

Regarding the safety outcomes, using NOAC with a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less TIMI major bleeding (OR: 0.53, 95% CrI: 0.35–0.78), TIMI major and minor bleeding (OR: 0.52, 95% CrI: 0.30–0.89), trial-defined safety outcome (OR: 0.54, 95% CrI: 0.33–0.86) and intracranial hemorrhage (OR: 0.31, 95% CrI: 0.12–0.73) compared to using VKA with DAPT (Figure 3). In addition, VKA with a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with lower trial-defined safety outcomes than VKA with DAPT (OR: 0.47, 95% CrI: 0.22–0.94). Pairwise comparisons among the strategies are summarized in Supplementary Materials Figure S2. The use of NOAC with a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with favorable any bleeding outcome when compared to other antithrombotic strategies. Moreover, the use of NOAC with a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less intracranial hemorrhage compared to VKA with SAPT (OR: 0.20, 95% CrI: 0.05–0.78).

3.4. Network Meta-Analysis for Efficacy Outcomes

Overall, there were no significant differences for trial-defined primary MACEs among the four antithrombotic strategies. Moreover, the four antithrombotic strategies had other comparable efficacy outcomes with respect to all-cause death, cardiovascular death, stroke, MI, and stent thrombosis (Figure 4). Pairwise comparisons regarding efficacy outcomes among the strategies are summarized in Supplementary Materials Figure S3. The odds of any efficacy outcomes were the same irrespective of the antithrombotic strategy used.
The performance of the four antithrombotic strategies is summarized in a two-dimensional forest plot of ORs (Figure 5). Compared to VKA with DAPT, NOAC with a P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with fewer TIMI major bleeding with no significant difference in the rate of primary MACEs outcome.

4. Discussion

This network meta-analysis of RCTs is the first meta-analysis to include four NOACs and had demonstrated several important findings. We found that dual antithrombotic agents with NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a lower rate of bleeding, including major or minor bleeding, and study defined primary safety endpoint compared to triple therapy that included aspirin. We also found that there was no significant difference in MACE. These results support the prescription of NOAC with P2Y12 inhibitors as the favorable regimen in AF patients undergoing PCI. Routine use of triple therapy in such patients should generally be avoided.

4.1. Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy

Balancing the risk of bleeding and thromboembolism with dual or triple antithrombotic therapy in AF patients undergoing PCI requires patient-by-patient evaluation. Current guidelines recommend a short course of triple antithrombotic therapy, including OAC and DAPT, in patients with OAC indication who are undergoing PCI [18]. Several meta-analyses comparing the safety and efficacy of dual and triple antithrombotic therapies in these high risk patients are summarized in Table 1 [13,14,15,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. The network meta-analysis performed by Gong et al. showed that the combination of VKA with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) yielded the best safety and efficacy, with a very low dose of rivaroxaban and DAPT deemed to be an acceptable alternative to standard triple therapy with VKA and DAPT [21]. Recently, two meta-analyses of RCTs demonstrated that dual antithrombotic therapy with NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitors was superior regarding bleeding, and equivalent regarding efficacy, compared to VKA and DAPT [13,14]. Our network meta-analysis corroborates the finding that dual therapy with an NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitor superior to triple therapy in AF patients undergoing PCI; This conclusion is based on the observed 46% reduction in major or minor TIMI bleeding with similar MACE outcomes. Furthermore, the use of a NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with a 69% reduction in intracranial hemorrhage, which is one of the most severe complications of standard triple therapy. The precise reasons for the decreased bleeding but similar efficacy of dual therapy compared to triple therapy are unknown, but there are several possibilities. First, new generation drug-eluting stents with a low risk of stent thrombosis may contribute to this effect by decreasing the necessity of DAPT in these patients [27]. Second, P2Y12 inhibitors, particularly clopidogrel, are more potent platelet inhibitor than aspirin and have less bleeding risk [28].

4.2. Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with NOAC or VKA and P2Y12 Inhibitors

Most of the meta-analyses regarding VKA and P2Y12 inhibitors with and without aspirin have demonstrated that dual therapy is associated with a similar risk of bleeding complications and a similar risk of MACEs compared to triple therapy. However, the study by Zhu et al. found that dual therapy had a significantly reduced (40% lower) bleeding risk compared to triple therapy [20]. These data suggest that dual therapy with VKA and P2Y12 inhibitors is more favored than standard triple therapy with VKA, P2Y12 inhibitors, and aspirin, and that standard triple therapy should be avoided in such patients. Although the ENTRUST-AF PCI trial was found to be underpowered to detect differences in bleeding risk between dual and triple thrombotic therapy in such patients [16], the other three NOAC trials demonstrated a significant reduction in bleeding complications with dual therapy compared to triple therapy, with comparable efficacy outcomes [10,11,12]. In addition, several meta-analyses, including these NOAC trials, demonstrated that NOACs and P2Y12 inhibitors resulted in a 40–50% risk reduction in bleeding complications compared to standard triple therapy [13,14,15,26]. Our network meta-analysis also confirmed that dual therapy with NOACs and P2Y12 inhibitors had favorable safety outcomes compared to dual therapy with VKA and P2Y12 inhibitors.

4.3. Previous and Present Meta-Analyses

Previous meta-analyses regarding the use of dual and triple antithrombotic therapy in AF patients undergoing PCI are summarized in Table 1. Results from these meta-analyses have conflicting results because of the difference of included studies and definition of safety outcome, such as major bleeding in each meta-analysis. The present analysis was different in many aspects. First, the present network meta-analysis restricted to data from high-quality RCTs to avoid possible bias. Second, the present study included trials in which all patients received PCI for ACS or stable CAD, while the previous meta-analyses included trials that enrolled patients with and without undergoing PCI. Third, previous meta-analyses included patients receive OAC indicated for AF, mechanical valve, or systemic thrombotic event while more than 95% of the population in the present meta-analysis received OAC because of AF. Finally, this is the first network meta-analysis to include four different NOACs, which increases the relevance of our meta-analysis.

4.4. Clinical Implication

In an era when physicians must balance bleeding risk and ischemic events risk in AF patients undergoing PCI, our network meta-analysis demonstrates that dual therapy with NOACs and P2Y12 inhibitors is better than conventional triple therapy for bleeding outcomes, and comparable in terms of efficacy outcomes. These results have significant clinical implications, as bleeding is associated with the interruption of antithrombotic therapy, which subsequently increases the risk of MACE in standard triple therapy [30]. These findings are crucial for the management of patients at high risk of bleeding in whom standard triple therapy should be avoid.

5. Limitation

This network meta-analysis has several limitations. First, there was heterogeneity between the included studies; in factors such as study design, indication of PCI (ACS or non-ACS), CHA2DS2-VASc or HAS-BLED scores, type of stent (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), type, dose, and duration of antithrombotic therapy, and duration of follow-up, which may potentially affect the interpretation of the results. Second, apart from the ISAR-TRIPLE trial, which used aspirin as the antiplatelet therapy, the other five trials used clopidogrel as a P2Y12 inhibitor in most of their dual therapy strategies. Further analysis should be conducted on more potent P2Y12 inhibitors, such as ticagrelor and prasugrel, which have a similar safety and efficacy in combination with OAC. Third, approximately 70% and 80% of enrolled patients in the WOEST and ISAR-TRIPLE trials, respectively. However, subgroup analysis of the WOEST and ISAR-TRIPLE trials showed no statistical differences in primary outcomes based on OAC indication, including AF, mechanical valves, and venous thrombosis.

6. Conclusions

Our systemic review and network meta-analysis demonstrates that NOAC and P2Y12 inhibitors may be a better choice than standard triple therapy or dual therapy with OAC and P2Y12 inhibitors in AF patients undergoing PCI.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/4/1062/s1, Figure S1: Convergence of iterations was evaluated using Gelman–Rubin–Brooke statistic and trace plots; Figure S2: Odds ratio for safety outcomes among the four antithrombotic therapies; Figure S3: Odds ratio for efficacy outcomes among the four antithrombotic therapies; Table S1: Characteristics of the included trials; Table S2: Safety and efficacy outcome of the included trials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.-K.C.; methodology, L.-C.C., K.-G.S., and J.-J.C.; validation, H.-F.H.; formal analysis, S.-K.C.; writing-original draft preparation, S.-K.C., C.-M.L.; supervision, C.-Z.C., and C.-M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Shin Kong Wu Ho-Su Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kralev, S.; Schneider, K.; Lang, S.; Suselbeck, T.; Borggrefe, M. Incidence and severity of coronary artery disease in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing first-time coronary angiography. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. January, C.T.; Wann, L.S.; Calkins, H.; Chen, L.Y.; Cigarroa, J.E.; Cleveland, J.C., Jr.; Ellinor, P.T.; Ezekowitz, M.D.; Field, M.E.; Furie, K.L.; et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 104–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Steffel, J.; Verhamme, P.; Potpara, T.S.; Albaladejo, P.; Antz, M.; Desteghe, L.; Haeusler, K.G.; Oldgren, J.; Reinecke, H.; Roldan-Schilling, V.; et al. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 1330–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Neumann, F.J.; Sousa-Uva, M. Ten Commandments’ for the 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 3759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Levine, G.N.; Bates, E.R.; Blankenship, J.C.; Bailey, S.R.; Bittl, J.A.; Cercek, B.; Chambers, C.E.; Ellis, S.G.; Guyton, R.A.; Hollenberg, S.M.; et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2016, 133, 1135–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Paikin, J.S.; Wright, D.S.; Crowther, M.A.; Mehta, S.R.; Eikelboom, J.W. Triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary artery stents. Circulation 2010, 121, 2067–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Holmes, D.R., Jr.; Kereiakes, D.J.; Kleiman, N.S.; Moliterno, D.J.; Patti, G.; Grines, C.L. Combining antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009, 54, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fiedler, K.A.; Maeng, M.; Mehilli, J.; Schulz-Schupke, S.; Byrne, R.A.; Sibbing, D.; Hoppmann, P.; Schneider, S.; Fusaro, M.; Ott, I.; et al. Duration of Triple Therapy in Patients Requiring Oral Anticoagulation After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation: The ISAR-TRIPLE Trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 65, 1619–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dewilde, W.J.; Oirbans, T.; Verheugt, F.W.; Kelder, J.C.; De Smet, B.J.; Herrman, J.P.; Adriaenssens, T.; Vrolix, M.; Heestermans, A.A.; Vis, M.M.; et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2013, 381, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gibson, C.M.; Mehran, R.; Bode, C.; Halperin, J.; Verheugt, F.W.; Wildgoose, P.; Birmingham, M.; Ianus, J.; Burton, P.; van Eickels, M.; et al. Prevention of Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 2423–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cannon, C.P.; Bhatt, D.L.; Oldgren, J.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Ellis, S.G.; Kimura, T.; Maeng, M.; Merkely, B.; Zeymer, U.; Gropper, S.; et al. Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 1513–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lopes, R.D.; Heizer, G.; Aronson, R.; Vora, A.N.; Massaro, T.; Mehran, R.; Goodman, S.G.; Windecker, S.; Darius, H.; Li, J.; et al. Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1509–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lopes, R.D.; Hong, H.; Harskamp, R.E.; Bhatt, D.L.; Mehran, R.; Cannon, C.P.; Granger, C.B.; Verheugt, F.W.A.; Li, J.; Ten Berg, J.M.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA Cardiol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Golwala, H.B.; Cannon, C.P.; Steg, P.G.; Doros, G.; Qamar, A.; Ellis, S.G.; Oldgren, J.; Ten Berg, J.M.; Kimura, T.; Hohnloser, S.H.; et al. Safety and efficacy of dual vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 1726a–1735a. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Brunetti, N.D.; Tarantino, N.; De Gennaro, L.; Correale, M.; Santoro, F.; Di Biase, M. Direct oral anticoagulants versus standard triple therapy in atrial fibrillation and PCI: Meta-analysis. Open Heart 2018, 5, e000785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vranckx, P.; Valgimigli, M.; Eckardt, L.; Tijssen, J.; Lewalter, T.; Gargiulo, G.; Batushkin, V.; Campo, G.; Lysak, Z.; Vakaliuk, I.; et al. Edoxaban-based versus vitamin K antagonist-based antithrombotic regimen after successful coronary stenting in patients with atrial fibrillation (ENTRUST-AF PCI): A randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009, 3, e123–e130. [Google Scholar]
  18. Neumann, F.J.; Sousa-Uva, M.; Ahlsson, A.; Alfonso, F.; Banning, A.P.; Benedetto, U.; Byrne, R.A.; Collet, J.P.; Falk, V.; Head, S.J.; et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 87–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, J.; Wang, L.Y.; Deng, C.; Jiang, X.H.; Chen, T.G. The safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants with dual versus single antiplatelet therapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltim.) 2017, 96, e8015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhu, W.; Guo, L.; Liu, F.; Wan, R.; Shen, Y.; Lip, G.Y.H.; Hong, K. Efficacy and safety of triple versus dual antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 81154–81166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gong, X.; Tang, S.; Li, J.; Zhang, X.; Tian, X.; Ma, S. Antithrombotic therapy strategies for atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Agarwal, N.; Jain, A.; Mahmoud, A.N.; Bishnoi, R.; Golwala, H.; Karimi, A.; Mojadidi, M.K.; Garg, J.; Gupta, T.; Patel, N.K.; et al. Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Med. 2017, 130, 1280–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yu, J.J.; Zou, C.; Liu, W.Y.; Yang, G.P. Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy for patients with long-term oral anticoagulation undergoing coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 2017, 14, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cavallari, I.; Patti, G. Meta-Analysis Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am. J. Cardiol. 2018, 121, 718–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, L.; Huang, J.; Zhang, X.; Tang, X. Efficacy and safety of triple therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary stenting: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bunmark, W.; Jinatongthai, P.; Vathesatogkit, P.; Thakkinstian, A.; Reid, C.M.; Wongcharoen, W.; Chaiyakunapruk, N.; Nathisuwan, S. Antithrombotic Regimens in Patients With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Whom an Anticoagulant Is Indicated: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 2018, 9, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mahmoud, A.N.; Shah, N.H.; Elgendy, I.Y.; Agarwal, N.; Elgendy, A.Y.; Mentias, A.; Barakat, A.F.; Mahtta, D.; David Anderson, R.; Bavry, A.A. Safety and efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: An updated meta-analysis and regression of 9 randomized clinical trials. Clin. Cardiol. 2018, 41, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Committee, C.S. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet 1996, 348, 1329–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gargiulo, G.; Goette, A.; Tijssen, J.; Eckardt, L.; Lewalter, T.; Vranckx, P.; Valgimigli, M. Safety and efficacy outcomes of double vs. triple antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based randomized clinical trials. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 3757–3767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mehran, R.; Rao, S.V.; Bhatt, D.L.; Gibson, C.M.; Caixeta, A.; Eikelboom, J.; Kaul, S.; Wiviott, S.D.; Menon, V.; Nikolsky, E.; et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: A consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011, 123, 2736–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 09 01062 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies.
Jcm 09 01062 g001
Jcm 09 01062 g002
Figure 2. Network of four antithrombotic therapy strategies. The nodes represent the antithrombotic therapy strategies to be compared; the size of nodes is proportional to the number of patients included for the different antithrombotic therapy strategies. The edges represent the direct comparisons between the antithrombotic therapy strategies and the thickness is proportional to the sample size of the studies.
Figure 2. Network of four antithrombotic therapy strategies. The nodes represent the antithrombotic therapy strategies to be compared; the size of nodes is proportional to the number of patients included for the different antithrombotic therapy strategies. The edges represent the direct comparisons between the antithrombotic therapy strategies and the thickness is proportional to the sample size of the studies.
Jcm 09 01062 g002
Jcm 09 01062 g003
Figure 3. Forest plots for safety outcomes. Odds ratio and 95% credible intervals (CrI) compared with vitamin antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are plotted. The estimated between-trial effect heterogeneity and its 95% CrI (in standard deviation of the log odds ratio scale) from network meta-analysis for each outcome is (A) TIMI major bleeding, 0.22 (95% CrI, 0.10–0.55), I2 = 0%; (B) TIMI major and minor bleeding, 0.46 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.84), I2 = 60%; (C) Trial-defined primary safety outcome, 0.48 (95% CrI, 0.08–1.08), I2 = 70%; (D) Intracranial hemorrhage, 0.41 (95% CrI, 0.26–1.08), I2 = 0%. DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; NOAC, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; SAPT, single antiplatelet therapy; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.
Figure 3. Forest plots for safety outcomes. Odds ratio and 95% credible intervals (CrI) compared with vitamin antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are plotted. The estimated between-trial effect heterogeneity and its 95% CrI (in standard deviation of the log odds ratio scale) from network meta-analysis for each outcome is (A) TIMI major bleeding, 0.22 (95% CrI, 0.10–0.55), I2 = 0%; (B) TIMI major and minor bleeding, 0.46 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.84), I2 = 60%; (C) Trial-defined primary safety outcome, 0.48 (95% CrI, 0.08–1.08), I2 = 70%; (D) Intracranial hemorrhage, 0.41 (95% CrI, 0.26–1.08), I2 = 0%. DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; NOAC, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; SAPT, single antiplatelet therapy; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.
Jcm 09 01062 g003
Jcm 09 01062 g004
Figure 4. Forest plots for efficacy outcomes. Odds ratio and 95% credible intervals (CrI) compared with vitamin antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are plotted. The estimated between-trial effect heterogeneity and its 95% CrI (in standard deviation of the log odds ratio scale) from network meta-analysis for each outcome is (A) Trial-defined primary MACEs, 0.23 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.55), I2 = 7%; (B) All-cause death, 0.24 (95% CrI, 0.13–0.60), I2 = 0%; (C) Cardiovascular death, 0.17 (95% CrI, 0.12–0.46), I2 = 0%; (D) Myocardial infarction, 0.15 (95% CrI, 0.05–0.35), I2 = 0%. (E) Stroke, 0.41 (95% CrI, 0.06–0.90), I2 = 0%; (F) Stent thrombosis, 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.69), I2 = 0%. MACEs: major adverse cardiovascular events; DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy; NOAC: non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; SAPT: single antiplatelet therapy; VKA: vitamin K antagonist.
Figure 4. Forest plots for efficacy outcomes. Odds ratio and 95% credible intervals (CrI) compared with vitamin antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are plotted. The estimated between-trial effect heterogeneity and its 95% CrI (in standard deviation of the log odds ratio scale) from network meta-analysis for each outcome is (A) Trial-defined primary MACEs, 0.23 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.55), I2 = 7%; (B) All-cause death, 0.24 (95% CrI, 0.13–0.60), I2 = 0%; (C) Cardiovascular death, 0.17 (95% CrI, 0.12–0.46), I2 = 0%; (D) Myocardial infarction, 0.15 (95% CrI, 0.05–0.35), I2 = 0%. (E) Stroke, 0.41 (95% CrI, 0.06–0.90), I2 = 0%; (F) Stent thrombosis, 0.30 (95% CrI, 0.09–0.69), I2 = 0%. MACEs: major adverse cardiovascular events; DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy; NOAC: non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; SAPT: single antiplatelet therapy; VKA: vitamin K antagonist.
Jcm 09 01062 g004
Jcm 09 01062 g005
Figure 5. Odds ratio (OR) for TIMI major bleeding and the trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
Figure 5. Odds ratio (OR) for TIMI major bleeding and the trial defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
Jcm 09 01062 g005
Table 1. Comparisons of previous and present meta-analyses related to the combination of anticoagulant and P2Y12 inhibitors with and without aspirin in atrial fibrillation patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Table 1. Comparisons of previous and present meta-analyses related to the combination of anticoagulant and P2Y12 inhibitors with and without aspirin in atrial fibrillation patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Author, YearTarget PopulationNumber of Included StudiesTimespan of All StudiesTotal Number of PatientsSafety Outcome
(Major Bleeding)		Efficacy Outcome
Network Meta-Analysis of RCTs
Gong et al., 2017 [21]Patients with AF undergoing PCI7 P, 5 R, 3 RCTs (WOEST, PIONEER -AF PCI, ROCKET AF post-hoc) 2008 to 201613,104DT vs. TT Risk Ratio = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.29–3.35)MACE: DT vs. TT Risk Ratio = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.43–0.98)
Bunmark et al., 2018 [26]Patients with OAC undergoing PCI4 RCTs (WOEST, PIONEER-AF PCI, REDUAL-PCI), 12 P, 14 R2007 to 201722,179DT vs. TT RR = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.49–0.94)All-cause death: DT vs. TT RR = 0.40 (95% CI: 0.17–0.93)
Lopes et al., 2019 [13]Patients with AF undergoing PCI5 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AGUSTUS)2013 to 201810,026DT vs. TT OR = 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30–0.82)MACE: DT vs. TT OR = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.71–1.47)
All-cause death: DT vs. TT OR = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.59–1.74)
Stroke: DT vs. TT OR = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.34–1.67)
Present study, 2020Patients with AF undergoing PCI6 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI)2013 to 201911,532DT vs. TT HR = 0.53 (95% CI: 0.35–078)MACE: DT vs. TT OR = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.72–1.42)
All-cause death: DT vs. TT OR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.72–1.60)
Stroke: DT vs. TT: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.41–1.48)
Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis
Chen et al., 2017 [19]Patients with OAC undergoing PCI2 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE), 5 P, 5 R2007 to 201630,823TT vs. DT RR = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74–0.99)MACE: TT vs. DT RR = 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58–1.17)
All-cause death: TT vs. DT RR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.54–1.51)
Stroke: TT vs. DT RR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.56–2.07)
Zhu et al., 2017 [20]Patients with AF and ischemic heart disease8 P, 9 R2010 to 201738,099TT vs. DT RR = 1.65 (95% CI: 1.23–2.21)MACE: TT vs. DT RR = 1.14 (95% CI: 0.75–1.73, p = 0.55)
All-cause death: TT vs. DT RR = 1.21 (95% CI: 0.78–1.88)
TE: TT vs. DT RR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.89–2.72; p = 0.12)
Agarwal et al., 2017 [22]Patients with OAC undergoing PCI2 RCTs (WOEST, PIONEER-AF PCI), 6 P, 3 R2007 to 20167276TT vs. DT RR = 1.54 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.98)MACE: TT vs. DT RR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.32)
All-cause death: TT vs. DR RR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.68 to 1.43)
TE: TT vs. DR RR = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.49 to 2.10)
Yu et al.,
2017 [23]		Patients with OAC undergoing PCI3 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE, PIONEER AF-PCI), 5 P, 6 R2000 to 201632,825TT vs. DT OR = 1.56 (95% CI: 0.98–2.49); MACE: TT vs. DT OR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.68 to 1.387)
All-cause death: TT vs. DT OR = 2.11 (95% CI: 1.10–4.06)
SE: TT vs. DT OR = 0.43 (95% CI: 0.30–0.62)
Cavallari et al., 2018 [24]Patients with AF undergoing PCI4 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI)2013 to 20176036DT vs. TT OR = 0.55 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.78)All-cause death: DT vs. TT OR = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.50 to 1.29)
Stroke: DT vs. TT OR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.58 to 1.57)
Golwala et al., 2018 [14]Patients with AF undergoing PCI4 RCTs (WOEST, ISAR-TRIPLE, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI)2013 to 20175317DT vs. TT HR = 0.53 95% CI: 0.36–0.85)MACE: DT vs. TT HR = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.48–1.29)
All-cause death: DT vs TT HR = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.46–1.37)
Stroke: DT vs. TT HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.45–1.84)
Brunetti et al., 2018 [15]Patients with AF undergoing PCI2 RCTs (PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PC)2016 to 20174849DT vs. TT RR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.47–0.73)MACE: DT vs. TT RR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.89–1.19)
Liu et al., 2018 [25]Patients with AF undergoing PCI5 P, 9 R2010 to 201611,697TT vs. DT OR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.16–2.09)MACE: TT vs. DT OR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87–1.07)
All-cause death: TT vs. DT OR = 0.92 (95% CI: 0.83–1.03)
Stroke: TT vs. DT OR = 0.74 (95% CI: 0.59–0.93)
Gargiulo et al., 2019 [29]Patients with AF undergoing PCI4 RCTs (PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI) 2016 to 2019 10,234DT vs. TT RR = 0,66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.78)MACE: DT vs. TT OR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.95–1.23)
All-cause death: DT vs. TT OR = 1.10 (95% CI: 0.91–1.34)
Stroke: DT vs. TT OR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69–1.45)
CI: Confidence interval, DT: Dual therapy with OAC and single antiplatelet therapy, MACE: Major adverse cardiovascular events, OR: Odd ratios, P: Prospective studies, R: Retrospective studies, RCTs: Randomized controlled trials, RR: Relative risk. TT: triple therapy with OAC and dual antiplatelet therapy.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chua, S.-K.; Chen, L.-C.; Shyu, K.-G.; Cheng, J.-J.; Hung, H.-F.; Chiu, C.-Z.; Lin, C.-M. Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041062

AMA Style

Chua S-K, Chen L-C, Shyu K-G, Cheng J-J, Hung H-F, Chiu C-Z, Lin C-M. Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(4):1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chua, Su-Kiat, Lung-Ching Chen, Kou-Gi Shyu, Jun-Jack Cheng, Huei-Fong Hung, Chiung-Zuan Chiu, and Chiu-Mei Lin. 2020. "Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 4: 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041062

APA Style

Chua, S.-K., Chen, L.-C., Shyu, K.-G., Cheng, J.-J., Hung, H.-F., Chiu, C.-Z., & Lin, C.-M. (2020). Antithrombotic Strategies in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systemic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(4), 1062. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041062

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop