scholarly journals What antithrombotic therapy should I use for my patient with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or had an acute coronary syndrome?

2021 ◽  
Vol 88 (7) ◽  
pp. 389-392
Author(s):  
Andrew S. Tseng ◽  
Fadi E. Shamoun ◽  
Lisa A. Marks ◽  
Neera Agrwal
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Changes of antithrombotic prescription in atrial fibrillation patients with acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention and the subsequent impact on long-term outcomes: A longitudinal cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiao-Chin Lee ◽  
Chiao-Hsiang Chang ◽  
Yuan Hung ◽  
Chin-Sheng Lin ◽  
Shih-Ping Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Prescription Rate ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Abstract Objectives:The choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. The aim of this longitudinal cohort study is to investigate the prescribing pattern of antithrombotic regimen in different cohorts and its subsequent impact. Setting and Design:Longitudinal data from the Tri-Service General Hospital-Coronary Heart Disease (TSGH-CHD) registry, between January 2016 and August 2018 was screened. Participants and method:Patients with prior history of nonvalvular AF, who had ACS presentation or had underwent PCI were selected, and these patients were divided into cohort 1 and cohort 2, according to the index date of antithrombotic prescription before and after the PIONEER AF-PCI study.Primary and secondary outcomes:The primary safety endpoints were composites of major bleeding and/or clinically relevant non-major bleeding. The secondary efficacy endpoints included the occurrence of all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolization, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and >30-days coronary revascularization. Results:A total of 121 patients were included into analysis (cohort 1=35; cohort 2=86). Comparing with cohort 1, the prescription rate of triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) increased from 17.1% to 38.4%, especially the regimen with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) plus low-dose non-vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulation (NOAC). However, the prescription rate of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) decreased (14.3% to 10.5%), as well as the prescription rate of DAPT (68.6% to 51.2%). These changes of antithrombotic prescription across different cohorts were not associated with risk of adverse safety (HR= 0.87; 95% CI, 0.42-1.80, p=0.710) and efficacy outcomes (HR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.40-2.32, p=0.930). Conclusions: Entering the NOAC era, the prescription of TAT increased alongside the decrease in DAT. As the prescription rate of DAPT without anticoagulation remained high, future efforts are mandatory to improve the implementation of guidelines and clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document