Impact of Triple Therapy in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background and Purpose

Selecting an ideal antithrombotic therapy for elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be challenging since they have a higher thromboembolic and bleeding risk than younger patients. The current study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy (TT: oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy: aspirin plus clopidogrel) in patients ≥75 years of age with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

A prospective multicenter study was conducted from 2003 to 2012 at 6 Spanish teaching hospitals. A cohort study of consecutive patients with AF undergoing PCI and treated with TT or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was analyzed. All outcomes were evaluated at 1-year of follow-up.

Results

Five hundred and eighty-five patients, 289 (49%) of whom were ≥75 years of age (79.6±3.4 years; 33% women) were identified. TT was prescribed in 55.9% of patients at discharge who had a higher thromboembolic risk (CHA₂DS₂VASc score: 4.23±1.51 vs 3.76±1.40, p = 0.007 and a higher bleeding risk (HAS-BLED ≥3: 88.6% vs 79.2%, p = 0.02) than those on DAPT. Therefore, patients on TT had a lower rate of thromboembolism than those on DAPT (0.6% vs 6.9%, p = 0.004; HR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–0.70, p = 0.004). Major bleeding events occurred more frequently in patients on TT than in those on DAPT (11.7% vs 2.4%, p = 0.002; HR 5.2, 95% CI: 1.53–17.57, p = 0.008). The overall mortality rate was similar in both treatment groups (11.9% vs 13.9%, p = 0.38); however, after adjustment for confounding variables, TT was associated with a reduced mortality rate (HR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.12–0.86, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In elderly patients with AF undergoing PCI, the use of TT compared to DAPT was associated with reduced thromboembolism and mortality rates, although a higher rate of major bleeding.     

Short versus long duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remains the cornerstone therapy in the prevention of ischaemic events following drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Mandatory duration of DAPT after DES however, is a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of short-term (up to 6 months) versus long-term (12 months) DAPT after DES implantation.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and international meetings for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing short with long DAPT. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of major trials with primary outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding event.

Results

Nine RCTs with a total number of 19,099 patients were pooled in the present meta-analysis. When compared with long DAPT, short DAPT was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding events (0.62% vs. 1.10%, risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.86, p?<?0.007, I²?=?21%), whereas all-cause death (1.65% vs. 1.84%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p?=?0.34, I2?=?0%), myocardial infarction (1.91% vs. 1.68%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40, p?=?0.23, I2?=?0%), definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.62% vs. 0.47%, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.86, p?=?0.27, I2?=?0%), and stroke (0.60% vs. 0.67%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31, p?=?0.61, I2?=?0%) were similar.

Conclusions

Short DAPT following DES implantation results in a significant reduction of major bleeding events with no apparent increase in all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke. Future dedicated trials should investigate the optimal strategies for patient-tailored DAPT in various subgroups.

     

P2Y12 blocker monotherapy after percutaneous coronary intervention

For secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) antiplatelet therapy is essential. For patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) temporary dual antiplatelet platelet therapy (DAPT: aspirin combined with a P2Y12 blocker) is mandatory, but leads to more bleeding than single antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. Therefore, to reduce bleeding after a PCI the duration of DAPT is usually kept as short as clinically acceptable; thereafter aspirin monotherapy is administered. Another option to reduce bleeding is to discontinue aspirin at the time of DAPT cessation and thereafter to administer P2Y12 blocker monotherapy. To date, five randomised trials have been published comparing DAPT with P2Y12 blocker monotherapy in 32,181 stented patients. Also two meta-analyses addressing this novel therapy have been presented. P2Y12 blocker monotherapy showed a 50–60% reduction in major bleeding when compared to DAPT without a significant increase in ischaemic outcomes, including stent thrombosis. This survey reviews the findings in the current literature concerning P2Y12 blocker monotherapy after PCI.     

Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention or after acute coronary syndrome

To prevent recurrent ischaemic events, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the standard of care after percutaneous coronary intervention and in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome. Recent evidence supports an adjusted DAPT duration in selected patients.The current paper aims to encourage cardiologists to actively search for patients benefiting from either shorter or prolonged duration DAPT and proposes an algorithm to identify patients who are likely to benefit from such an alternative strategy.Individualised DAPT duration should be considered in high-risk anatomic and/or clinical subgroups or in patients at increased haemorrhagic risk with low ischaemic risk. Both thrombotic and haemorrhagic risk should be assessed in all patients. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the interventional cardiologist could advise on the minimal duration of DAPT. However, in contrast to the minimum duration of DAPT for stent thrombosis prevention, longer duration DAPT is aimed at prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction, and not at stent thrombosis, and thus the key to success is to treat the patient’s overall thrombotic risk.The advice on the duration of DAPT must be documented in the patient’s records and communicated with the treating physician and general practitioner. DAPT duration should be reassessed at least on a yearly basis.     

Optimal antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: triple therapy is too much!

Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo a coronary intervention are eligible for both anticoagulation and (dual) antiplatelet therapy ((D)APT). An optimal balance has to be found to reduce the thromboembolic risk (i.e. stroke, systemic embolism and myocardial infarction) and to minimise the increased risk of bleeding with concomitant use of an anticoagulant and (D)APT. Owing to a lack of evidence, the guideline recommendations are predominantly based on expert opinion. Current evidence indicates that the combination of a non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) and clopidogrel is safer than vitamin-K oral antagonists plus DAPT, which increases the risk of bleeding, without clear advantages in regard to efficacy. Concerning whether (N)OACs should be combined with single APT rather than DAPT, the findings of the WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI and RE-DUAL PCI trials seem to favour a combination with clopidogrel only, thus omitting aspirin. Choosing the optimal treatment strategies for individual patients on NOACs and (D)APT will remain a challenge for clinicians, though triple therapy seems to be the less favourable option owing to the increased risk of bleeding.     

Preoperative statin therapy and infectious complications in cardiac surgery

AimTo assess whether preoperative statin therapy is associated with the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Methods520 patients undergoing cardiac surgery in 2010 were retrospectively examined. Data regarding statin and antibiotic use prior to and after surgery were available from the hospital pharmacy information system. Cultures and clinical data of patients on postoperative antibiotics other than standard prophylactic therapy were studied to identify postoperative infections up to 30 days from day of surgery.Results370 (71.2 %) patients were on preoperative statin therapy. Overall, 82 patients (15.8 %) suffered from postoperative infection of which 11 were surgical site infections. In multivariable regression analysis, statin therapy was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative infection (adjusted odds ratio: 0.329, 95 %: CI 0.19–0.57; P < 0.001).ConclusionsPreoperative statin use was associated with a considerable reduced risk of postoperative infections following cardiac surgery. Randomised controlled trials are required to clarify the role of statin therapy in the prevention of postoperative infections.     

布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑阿莫西林克拉霉素治疗顽固性幽门螺杆菌感染的临床研究

目的 探讨布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑阿莫西林克拉霉素三联疗法对幽门螺杆菌(Helicobacter pylori,H.pylori)顽固性感染的治疗效果.方法 将120例H.pylori顽固性感染患者分成两组,分别采用奥美拉唑的三联疗法和布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑三联疗法治疗14 d.结果 两组患者治疗14d后,奥美拉唑三联组和布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑三联组的H.pylori清除率分别是94.6％和96.6％,两组间差异无统计学意义;在不良反应方面,奥美拉唑三联治疗组中发生16例,明显高于布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑三联组的5例(P＜0.05).结论 布拉酵母菌联合奥美拉唑三联治疗方案不仅具有良好的H.pylori清除效果,而且不良反应少,是治疗顽固性H.pylori感染患者比较好的方法.     

Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery disease

The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome is a complex decision. We review current literature on standard duration DAPT versus short duration DAPT (6 months or shorter) or extended duration DAPT (>12 months) after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent placement, and prolonged treatment after 12 months in acute coronary syndrome. Current guideline recommendations are summarised, including the use of risk scores for ischaemic and bleeding risk assessment. Because of the limitations of current risk scores, we propose multiple patient-related and procedure-related factors for the ischaemic and bleeding risk assessment aiding in personalised DAPT duration.     

‘Ins’ and ‘outs’ of triple therapy

Chronic oral anticoagulant treatment is obligatory in patients (class I) with mechanical heart valves and in patients with atrial fibrillation with CHADS2 score >1. When these patients undergo percutaneous coronary intervention with placement of a stent, there is also an indication for treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel. Unfortunately, triple therapy is known to increase the bleeding risk. For this group of patients, the bottom line is to find the ideal therapy in patients with indications for both chronic anticoagulation therapy and percutaneous intervention to prevent thromboembolic complications such as stent thrombosis without increasing the risk of bleeding. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:444-50.)     

Implementation of guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in clinical practice: Which patients do benefit?

Purpose

Based on multiple large clinical trials conducted over the last decades guidelines for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have been evolving. The increase in primary prophylactic ICD implantations challenges us to be critical towards the indications in certain patient populations.

Methods

We retrospectively collected patient characteristics and rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shock and mortality of all patients who received an ICD in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU) over the years 2006–2011.

Results

A total of 1075 patients were included in this analysis (74 % male, mean age 61 ± 13 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30 ± 13 %); 61 % had a primary indication and 58 % had ischaemic heart disease. During a mean follow-up period of 31 ± 17 months, 227 of the patients (21 %) received appropriate ICD therapy (149 (14 %) patients received an appropriate ICD shock). Females, patients with a primary prophylactic indication and patients with non-ischaemic heart disease experienced significantly less ICD therapy. Only a few patients (54, 5 %) received inappropriate ICD therapy; 33 (3 %) patients received an inappropriate ICD shock. Fifty-five patients died within one year after ICD implantation and were therefore, in retrospect, not eligible for ICD implantation.

Conclusion

Our study confirms the benefit of ICD implantation in clinical practice. Nevertheless, certain patients experience less benefit than others. A more patient-tailored risk stratification based on electrophysiological parameters would be lucrative to improve clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness.     

Optimal pharmacological therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction—a review

Antithrombotic therapy is an essential component in the optimisation of clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. There are currently several intravenous anticoagulant drugs available for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Dual antiplatelet therapy comprising aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor represents the cornerstone treatment for STEMI. However, these effective treatment strategies may be associated with bleeding complications. Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor are more potent and predictable, which translates into better clinical outcomes. Therefore, these agents are the first-line treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. However, patients can still experience adverse ischaemic events, which might be in part attributed to alternative pathways triggering thrombosis. In this review, we provide a critical and updated review of currently available antithrombotic therapies used in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Finding a balance that minimises both thrombotic and bleeding risk is difficult, but crucial. Further randomised trials for this optimal balance are needed.     

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Background

Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure can be an alternative to coumadin treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk for thromboembolic events and/or bleeding complications. We report the initial experience with this new technique.

Methods

Patients were eligible if they had AF with a high stroke risk (CHADS₂ score >1), and/or contraindication for coumadin therapy. The procedure was performed under general anaesthesia, using biplane fluoroscopy and (3D) transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance. Patients were discharged on coumadin until a TEE was repeated at 45 days after closure to evaluate LAA occlusion. If LAA occlusion was achieved, oral anticoagulation was discontinued and aspirin started.

Results

Percutaneous LAA closure was performed in 10 patients (50% male, age 61.6 ± 9.6 years). The median CHADS₂ score was 3 (range 2–4), median CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 3.5 (range 2–6) and HAS-BLED score 1.5 (range 1–4). Nine patients had a history of stroke and 2 patients had a history of major bleeding while on coumadin. Concomitant pulmonary vein isolation was performed in 9 patients. The device was successfully placed in all patients within a median of 56 min (38–137 min). Asymptomatic catheter thrombus occurred in one patient. At 45-day follow-up, no thromboembolic events occurred, TEE showed minimal residual flow in the LAA in three patients. In one patient the LAA device was dislocated, requiring successful percutaneous retrieval.

Conclusion

Device closure of the LAA may provide an alternative strategy to chronic coumadin therapy in patients with AF and high risk of stroke and/or bleeding complications using coumadin.     

The Italian START-Register on Anticoagulation with Focus on Atrial Fibrillation

START-Register – Survey on anTicoagulated pAtients RegisTer – is an independent, inception-cohort, observational, collaborative database aimed at recording prospectively the clinical history of adult patients starting anticoagulant treatment for any reason and using whatever drug. In this article we present the START-Register and give cross section baseline data focusing on non valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Participants are asked to insert prospectively consecutive patients recorded as electronic file on the web-site of the registry. Required data are: demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, associated risk factors for stroke and bleeding, laboratory routine data, clinical indication for treatment, expected therapeutic range (in cases of treatment with vitamin K antagonists -VKAs). The follow-up is carried out to record: quality of treatment (for patients on VKAs), bleeding complications, thrombotic events, and the onset of any type of associated disease. To date 5252 patients have been enrolled; 97.6% were on VKAs because direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been available in Italy only recently. The median age was 74 years [interquartile range (IQR) 64-80]; males 53.7%. This analysis is focused on the 3209 (61.1%) NVAF patients. Mean CHADS₂ score was 2.1±1.1, CHADSVASc score was 3.1±1.3;median age was 76 years (IQR 70-81); 168 patients (5.3%) had severe renal failure [Creatinine clearance (CrCl) <30 ml/min]. Moderate renal failure (CrCl 30-59 ml/min) was found in 1265 patients (39.5%). The analysis of the START-Register data shows that two-third of patients who started chronic anticoagulant treatment had NVAF, one-third of them was > 80 years with high prevalence of renal failure.     

Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, affecting millions of individuals worldwide ^1-3. The rapid, irregular, and disordered electrical activity in the atria gives rise to palpitations, fatigue, dyspnea, chest pain and dizziness with or without syncope ^{4, 5}. Patients with AF have a five-fold higher risk of stroke ⁶.Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin is commonly used for stroke prevention in patients with AF and has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke by 64% ⁷. Warfarin therapy has several major disadvantages, however, including bleeding, non-tolerance, interactions with other medications and foods, non-compliance and a narrow therapeutic range ^8-11. These issues, together with poor appreciation of the risk-benefit ratio, unawareness of guidelines, or absence of an OAC monitoring outpatient clinic may explain why only 30-60% of patients with AF are prescribed this drug ⁸.The problems associated with warfarin, combined with the limited efficacy and/or serious side effects associated with other medications used for AF ^12,13, highlight the need for effective non-pharmacological approaches to treatment. One such approach is catheter ablation (CA), a procedure in which a radiofrequency electrical current is applied to regions of the heart to create small ablation lesions that electrically isolate potential AF triggers ⁴. CA is a well-established treatment for AF symptoms ^{14, 15}, that may also decrease the risk of stroke. Recent data showed a significant decrease in the relative risk of stroke and transient ischemic attack events among patients who underwent ablation compared with those undergoing antiarrhythmic drug therapy ¹⁶.Since the left atrial appendage (LAA) is the source of thrombi in more than 90% of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation ¹⁷, another approach to stroke prevention is to physically block clots from exiting the LAA. One method for occluding the LAA is via percutaneous placement of the WATCHMAN LAA closure device. The WATCHMAN device resembles a small parachute. It consists of a nitinol frame covered by fabric polyethyl terephthalate that prevents emboli, but not blood, from exiting during the healing process. Fixation anchors around the perimeter secure the device in the LAA (Figure 1). To date, the WATCHMAN is the only implanted percutaneous device for which a randomized clinical trial has been reported. In this study, implantation of the WATCHMAN was found to be at least as effective as warfarin in preventing stroke (all-causes) and death (all-causes) ¹⁸. This device received the Conformité Européenne (CE) mark for use in the European Union for warfarin eligible patients and in those who have a contraindication to anticoagulation therapy ¹⁹.Given the proven effectiveness of CA to alleviate AF symptoms and the promising data with regard to reduction of thromboembolic events with both CA and WATCHMAN implantation, combining the two procedures is hoped to further reduce the incidence of stroke in high-risk patients while simultaneously relieving symptoms. The combined procedure may eventually enable patients to undergo implantation of the WATCHMAN device without subsequent warfarin treatment, since the CA procedure itself reduces thromboembolic events. This would present an avenue of treatment previously unavailable to patients ineligible for warfarin treatment because of recurrent bleeding ²⁰ or other warfarin-associated problems.The combined procedure is performed under general anesthesia with biplane fluoroscopy and TEE guidance. Catheter ablation is followed by implantation of the WATCHMAN LAA closure device. Data from a non-randomized trial with 10 patients demonstrates that this procedure can be safely performed in patients with a CHADS₂ score of greater than 1 ²¹. Further studies to examine the effectiveness of the combined procedure in reducing symptoms from AF and associated stroke are therefore warranted.     

Efficacy and Safety of Intracoronary versus Intravenous Administration of Tirofiban during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).

Results

Seven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I² = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.     

Rates of rebleeding,thrombosis and mortality associated with resumption of anticoagulant therapy after anticoagulant-related bleeding

BACKGROUND:Data on resuming oral anticoagulants (OACs) after bleeding are primarily from studies involving patients given warfarin, with few data on direct OACs (DOACs). We aimed to characterize prescribing patterns for OACs after OAC-related bleeding and compare the rates of bleeding, thrombosis and mortality in patients who resumed either type of OAC with those who did not.METHODS:We conducted a population-based cohort study of adults aged 66 years or older who were admitted to hospital for bleeding while receiving OACs from Apr. 1, 2012, to Mar. 31, 2017, using linked administrative health databases from Ontario. We used competing risk methods to calculate cause-specific adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for thrombosis, bleeding and mortality with resumption of OACs adjusted as a time-varying covariate. We determined time to OAC resumption using the Kaplan–Meier method.RESULTS:We included 6793 patients with gastrointestinal (n = 4297, 63.3%), intracranial (n = 805, 11.9%) or other bleeding (n = 1691, 25.0%). At cohort entry, 3874 patients (57.0%) were prescribed warfarin and 2919 patients (43.0%) were prescribed a DOAC. The most common indication for OAC was atrial fibrillation (n = 5557, 81.8%), followed by venous thromboembolism (n = 1367, 20.1%). Oral anticoagulants were resumed in 4792 patients (70.5%) within 365 days of the index bleed. The median time to resumption was 46 (interquartile range 6–550) days. We found that resuming OAC was associated with reduced rates of thrombosis (adjusted HR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50–0.72) and mortality (adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48–0.60), and an increased rate of rebleeding (adjusted HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.64–2.17).INTERPRETATION:We found that resuming OAC is associated with a reduction in thrombosis and mortality but an increase in bleeding. Randomized controlled trials that evaluate the net benefit of strategies for resumption of OAC after a bleeding event are warranted.

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are used to prevent and treat arterial and venous thrombosis. Bleeding associated with OACs is the most common adverse drug event that leads to visits to the emergency department, hospital admissions and death.^1,2 When OACs are withheld after a bleed, patients are exposed to an increased risk of thrombosis and possibly death. A challenging clinical problem is determining whether OACs should be resumed after a bleed and, if so, the optimal strategy for resumption.Oral anticoagulant therapy is stopped permanently in a substantial proportion of patients after gastrointestinal (GI) or intracranial bleeding (50% and 64%, respectively)^3,4 despite evidence that suggests a benefit to restarting.^3,5–9 Direct OACs (DOACs) are now recommended for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) based on substantial evidence.^10–12 However, resumption of OACs after bleeding has been assessed primarily in small studies of patients treated with warfarin that did not report on extracranial non-GI bleeding.^3,4,13Using population-based data, we aimed to characterize prescribing patterns for OACs and compare outcomes between patients who resumed OAC with those who did not after OAC-related bleeding. Our secondary aims were to compare outcomes separately after OAC-related GI bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, extracranial non-GI bleeding and any bleeding.     

High-Maintenance-Dose Clopidogrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Despite routine use of clopidogrel, adverse cardiovascular events recur among some patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To optimize antiplatelet therapies, we performed a meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of high versus standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel in these patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing high (>75 mg) and standard maintenance doses of clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI were included. The primary efficacy and safety end-points were major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACE/MACCE) and major bleeding. The secondary end-points were other ischemic and bleeding adverse effects. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for each outcome was estimated.

Results

14 RCTs with 4424 patients were included. Compared with standard-maintenance-dose clopidogrel, high-maintenance-dose clopidogrel significantly reduced the incidence of MACE/MACCE (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83), stent thrombosis (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74), without significant decrease of the risk of cardiovascular death (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.33). For safety outcomes, it did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32), minor bleeding (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66) and any bleeding (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43).

Conclusion

High-maintenance-dose clopidogrel reduces the recurrence of most ischemic events in patients post-PCI without increasing the risk of bleeding complications.     

Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Periprocedural heparin bridging therapy aims to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients requiring an interruption in their anticoagulation therapy for the purpose of an elective procedure. The efficacy and safety of heparin bridging therapy has not been well established.

Objectives

To compare through meta-analysis the effects of heparin bridging therapy on the risk of major bleeding and thromboembolic events of clinical significance among patients taking oral anticoagulants.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library from January 2005 to July 2016. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes of patients receiving heparin bridging therapy during interruption of oral anticoagulant for operations. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling.

Results

A total of 25 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, were finally included in this analysis. Among all the 35,944 patients, 10,313 patients were assigned as heparin bridging group, and the other 25,631 patients were non-heparin bridging group. Overall, compared with patients without bridging therapy, heparin bridging therapy increased the risk of major bleeding (OR?=?3.23, 95%CI: 2.06–5.05), minor bleeding (OR?=?1.52, 95%CI: 1.06–2.18) and overall bleeding (OR?=?2.83, 95%CI: 1.86–4.30).While there was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (OR?=?0.99,95%CI: 0.49–2.00), stroke or transient ischemic attack(OR?=?1.45, 95%CI: 0.93–2.26,) or all-cause mortality (OR?=?0.71, 95%CI: 0.31–1.65).

Conclusions

Heparin-bridging therapy increased the risk of major and minor bleeding without decreasing the risk of thromboembolic events and all cause death compared to non-heparin bridging.