Vranckx Pascal, Valgimigli Marco, Eckardt Lars, Lewalter Thorsten, Unikas Ramunas, Marin Francisco, Schiele François, Laeis Petra, Reimitz Paul-Egbert, Smolnik Rüdiger, Zierhut Wolfgang, Tijssen Jan, Goette Andreas
Department of Cardiology & Critical Care Jessaziekenhuis Hasselt, Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Eur Heart J. 2020 Dec 14;41(47):4497-4504. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa617.
To compare the safety and efficacy of edoxaban combined with P2Y12 inhibition following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).
In this pre-specified sub-analysis of the ENTRUST-AF PCI trial, participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to edoxaban- or vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-based strategy and randomization was stratified by ACS (edoxaban n = 388, VKA n = 389) vs. CCS (edoxaban n = 363, VKA = 366). Participants received edoxaban 60 mg once-daily plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months, or VKA combined with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin 100 mg (for 1-12 months). The primary bleeding endpoint at 12 months occurred in 59 (15.2%) vs. 79 (20.3%) ACS patients [hazard ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-1.02, P = 0.063], and in 69 (19.0%) vs. 73 (19.9%) CCS patients (HR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.68-1.31, P = 0.708) with edoxaban- and VKA-based therapy, respectively [P for interaction (P-int) = 0.2741]. The main secondary endpoint (composite of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolic events, or definite stent thrombosis) in ACS patients was 33 (8.5%) vs. 28 (7.2%) (HR: 1.16, 95%CI: 0.70-1.92), compared with 16 (4.4%) vs. 18 (4.9%) (HR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.47-1.78) CCS patients with edoxaban and VKA-based therapy, respectively (P-int = 0.5573).
In patients with AF who underwent PCI, the edoxaban-based regimen, as compared with VKA-based regimen, provides consistent safety and similar efficacy for ischaemic events in patients with AF regardless of their clinical presentation.
比较依度沙班联合P2Y12抑制剂在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后对伴有急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)或慢性冠状动脉综合征(CCS)的房颤(AF)患者的安全性和有效性。
在ENTRUST-AF PCI试验的这项预先指定的亚分析中,参与者被随机1:1分配至依度沙班或维生素K拮抗剂(VKA)治疗策略组,随机分组按ACS(依度沙班组n = 388,VKA组n = 389)与CCS(依度沙班组n = 363,VKA组 = 366)进行分层。参与者接受每日一次60mg依度沙班加一种P2Y12抑制剂治疗12个月,或VKA联合一种P2Y12抑制剂及100mg阿司匹林(治疗1 - 12个月)。12个月时,ACS患者的主要出血终点发生率在依度沙班组为59例(15.2%),VKA组为79例(20.3%)[风险比(HR):0.73,95%置信区间(CI):0.59 - 1.02,P = 0.063];CCS患者中,依度沙班组为69例(19.0%),VKA组为73例(19.9%)(HR:0.94,95%CI:0.68 - 1.31,P = 0.708),基于依度沙班和VKA治疗组的[交互作用P值(P-int) = 0.2741]。ACS患者的主要次要终点(心血管死亡、心肌梗死、中风、全身性栓塞事件或明确的支架血栓形成的复合终点)在依度沙班组为33例(8.5%),VKA组为28例(7.2%)(HR:1.16,95%CI:0.70 - 1.92),而CCS患者中,依度沙班组为16例(4.4%),VKA组为18例(4.9%)(HR:0.91,95%CI:0.47 - 1.78),基于依度沙班和VKA治疗组的(P-int = 0.5573)。
在接受PCI的房颤患者中,与基于VKA的治疗方案相比,基于依度沙班的治疗方案对房颤患者的缺血性事件提供了一致的安全性和相似的有效性,无论其临床表现如何。