Dual vs. triple antithrombotic treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis on current evidence.

OBJECTIVE

Combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy in order to prevent both stent thrombosis and thromboembolic complications after coronary artery stenting (PCI) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is still debated. This uncertainty can be attributed mainly to the fact that the reference trials were open-label and not adequately powered in order to reach a definitive conclusion on ischemic endpoints (i.e., stent thrombosis). On these grounds, data from real-life studies could support evidence on dual antithrombotic treatment (DAT) safety (bleeding risk) and efficacy (stent thrombosis prevention). The aim of the meta-analysis is to investigate in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (Obs) the risks and/or benefits related to DAT vs. triple antithrombotic treatment (TAT) regimens in patients affected by AF undergoing PCI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs and Obs were retrieved through PubMed database. The risk ratio with 95% confidence interval was used to compare the primary and the safety endpoints.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between DAT vs. TAT for mortality. However, a two-fold higher mortality rate was registered in Obs than in RCTs. The Obs did not confirm the expected significant reduction in bleeding risk shown by the RCTs; however, the bleeding rates in Obs were more than three-fold those of RCTs. In Obs, a significant greater risk for stent thrombosis was observed in DAT than in TAT.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy outcomes observed in RCTs are unrealistic with respect to the current clinical practice. So, more evidence is needed to have more exhaustive guidelines based on RCTs with homogeneous designs and protocols that should mimic real-life population and practice.