Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

backgroundThere remains insufficient evidence to determine the optimal antithrombotic strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), especially in Asian populations.

objectivesThis study aimed to examine the real-world patterns of antithrombotic treatment among these patients and to compare the effectiveness and safety of different antithrombotic regimens.

methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in AF patients presenting with a new ACS or PCI during 2006/1/1-2016/4/1. Three antithrombotic regimens were compared: dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, as the reference group), triple therapy (TT: DAPT plus an oral anticoagulant), and dual therapy (DT: single antiplatelet plus an oral anticoagulant). The outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and bleeding. Treatment effect was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics among comparison groups.

resultsOverall, 532 patients were included. At discharge from the index hospitalization, DAPT was the most common antithrombotic therapy, followed by TT and DT. No significant difference in MACCEs was found among the different antithrombotic regimens. However, DT was associated with a lower risk of any bleeding [adjusted hazard ratio 0.20 (95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.75)] than DAPT.

conclusionsIn the study population, DAPT was the most commonly prescribed antithrombotic regimen for cardio-cerebrovascular disease prevention. The effectiveness outcomes were comparable across different antithrombotic strategies. The lower risk of bleeding with DT compared with DAPT warrants further investigation.