ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant-based triple therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAtrial fibrillation (AF) increases thromboembolic and cardiovascular risks. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial owing to the competing risks of ischemia and bleeding. We hypothesized that non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) would provide superior ischemic protection than dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), without excessively increasing bleeding risk. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of NOAC-based triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) with DAPT, in AF patients undergoing PCI.
methodsUsing the Health Insurance Review and Assessment database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients with AF who underwent PCI between 2016 and 2021. Patients receiving NOAC-based TAT or DAPT were propensity score matched 1:1. The primary endpoint was a composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included these endpoints individually and major bleeding events.
resultsAfter matching, 3,346 patients per group were enrolled. At 6-month follow-up, TAT was associated with a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome than DAPT (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–0.92; p < 0.01). TAT also reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62–1.00; p = 0.05), ischemic stroke (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48–0.99; p = 0.04), and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.87; p < 0.01), with no significant increase in major bleeding (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65–1.27; p = 0.59).
conclusionNOAC-based TAT significantly reduced composite cardiovascular events without increasing bleeding risk, supporting its clinical utility in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41553510What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.