Meta-Analysis of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Abstract

Current clinical practice prefers oral anticoagulation (OAC) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We conducted a meta-analysis to test the hypothesis that the superiority of OAC plus DAPT is mainly endorsed by observational studies (OSs); conversely, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have suggested that OAC plus a single antiplatelet (SAP) agent is a safer and equally effective approach. Nine studies (4 RCTs and 5 OSs) were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Inception, October 31, 2017). In analysis of RCTs, OAC plus SAP was safer in terms of major bleeding compared with OAC plus DAPT (relative risk [RR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.81, p <0.001). Conversely, analysis of OSs showed comparable risk of major bleeding among both groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29, p = 0.61). For major adverse cardiovascular events, RCTs restricted analysis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27, p = 0.64) and analysis of OSs (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.42, p = 0.19) showed similar outcomes between both strategies. Both regimens had a similar risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in RCTs restricted analysis (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.56, p = 0.24); however, analysis of OSs showed 76% higher risk of MI with OAC plus SAP. In conclusion, in patients with AF after PCI, RCTs recommend OAC plus SAP for better safety and equal efficacy compared with OAC plus DAPT. These findings oppose the results of OSs that showed similar safety and reduced risk of MI with OAC plus DAPT.