Importance: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for experiencing recurrent ischemic events. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been proposed for secondary prevention after ACS. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOAC in addition to antiplatelet therapy (APT) after ACS, focusing on treatment effects stratified by baseline clinical presentation (non-ST-segment elevation ACS [NSTE-ACS] vs ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]). Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2017. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials on DOAC after ACS were evaluated for inclusion. Overall, 473 studies were screened, 19 clinical trials were assessed as potentially eligible, and 6 were included in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to abstract data and assess quality and validity. The risk of bias tool, version 2.0 (Cochrane) was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The prespecified primary safety end point was major bleeding. Results: Six trials that included 29 667 patients were identified (14 580 patients [49.1%] with STEMI and 15 036 [50.7%] with NSTE-ACS). The primary efficacy end point risk was significantly lower in patients who were treated with DOAC as compared with APT alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93; P < .001). This benefit was pronounced in patients with STEMI (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001), while no significant treatment effect was observed in patients with NSTE-ACS (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.09; P = .36; P for interaction = .09). With respect to safety, DOACs were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding as compared with APT alone (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.27-4.42; P < .001), with consistent results in patients with STEMI (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.95-6.09; P < .001) and NSTE-ACS (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.38-3.48; P < .001; P for interaction = .23). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, these findings are the first evidence to support differential treatment effects of DOAC in addition to APT according to ACS baseline clinical presentation. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk-benefit profile of DOAC appears unfavorable. Conversely, DOAC in addition to APT might represent an attractive option for patients with STEMI.
Importance: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain at high risk for experiencing recurrent ischemic events. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been proposed for secondary prevention after ACS. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOAC in addition to antiplatelet therapy (APT) after ACS, focusing on treatment effects stratified by baseline clinical presentation (non-ST-segment elevation ACS [NSTE-ACS] vs ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]). Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to March 1, 2017. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials on DOAC after ACS were evaluated for inclusion. Overall, 473 studies were screened, 19 clinical trials were assessed as potentially eligible, and 6 were included in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to abstract data and assess quality and validity. The risk of bias tool, version 2.0 (Cochrane) was used for risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The prespecified primary safety end point was major bleeding. Results: Six trials that included 29 667 patients were identified (14 580 patients [49.1%] with STEMI and 15 036 [50.7%] with NSTE-ACS). The primary efficacy end point risk was significantly lower in patients who were treated with DOAC as compared with APT alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93; P < .001). This benefit was pronounced in patients with STEMI (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001), while no significant treatment effect was observed in patients with NSTE-ACS (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.09; P = .36; P for interaction = .09). With respect to safety, DOACs were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding as compared with APT alone (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.27-4.42; P < .001), with consistent results in patients with STEMI (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.95-6.09; P < .001) and NSTE-ACS (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.38-3.48; P < .001; P for interaction = .23). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, these findings are the first evidence to support differential treatment effects of DOAC in addition to APT according to ACS baseline clinical presentation. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk-benefit profile of DOAC appears unfavorable. Conversely, DOAC in addition to APT might represent an attractive option for patients with STEMI.
Authors: Jessica L Mega; Eugene Braunwald; Stephen D Wiviott; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Deepak L Bhatt; Christoph Bode; Paul Burton; Marc Cohen; Nancy Cook-Bruns; Keith A A Fox; Shinya Goto; Sabina A Murphy; Alexei N Plotnikov; David Schneider; Xiang Sun; Freek W A Verheugt; C Michael Gibson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Peter Shrader; Laine Thomas; Jack Ansell; Gregg C Fonarow; Bernard J Gersh; Peter R Kowey; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Gerald Naccarelli; James Reiffel; Daniel E Singer; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: John W Eikelboom; Stuart J Connolly; Jackie Bosch; Gilles R Dagenais; Robert G Hart; Olga Shestakovska; Rafael Diaz; Marco Alings; Eva M Lonn; Sonia S Anand; Petr Widimsky; Masatsugu Hori; Alvaro Avezum; Leopoldo S Piegas; Kelley R H Branch; Jeffrey Probstfield; Deepak L Bhatt; Jun Zhu; Yan Liang; Aldo P Maggioni; Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo; Martin O'Donnell; Ajay K Kakkar; Keith A A Fox; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Georg Ertl; Stefan Störk; Matyas Keltai; Lars Ryden; Nana Pogosova; Antonio L Dans; Fernando Lanas; Patrick J Commerford; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Tomek J Guzik; Peter B Verhamme; Dragos Vinereanu; Jae-Hyung Kim; Andrew M Tonkin; Basil S Lewis; Camilo Felix; Khalid Yusoff; P Gabriel Steg; Kaj P Metsarinne; Nancy Cook Bruns; Frank Misselwitz; Edmond Chen; Darryl Leong; Salim Yusuf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jonas Oldgren; Andrzej Budaj; Christopher B Granger; Yasser Khder; Juliet Roberts; Agneta Siegbahn; Jan G P Tijssen; Frans Van de Werf; Lars Wallentin Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: E Magnus Ohman; Matthew T Roe; P Gabriel Steg; Stefan K James; Thomas J Povsic; Jennifer White; Frank Rockhold; Alexei Plotnikov; Hardi Mundl; John Strony; Xiang Sun; Steen Husted; Michal Tendera; Gilles Montalescot; M Cecilia Bahit; Diego Ardissino; Héctor Bueno; Marc J Claeys; Jose C Nicolau; Jan H Cornel; Shinya Goto; Róbert Gábor Kiss; Ümit Güray; Duk-Woo Park; Christoph Bode; Robert C Welsh; C Michael Gibson Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert W Yeh; Stephen Sidney; Malini Chandra; Michael Sorel; Joseph V Selby; Alan S Go Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adam Hartley; Dominic C Marshall; Justin D Salciccioli; Markus B Sikkel; Mahiben Maruthappu; Joseph Shalhoub Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rinske Loeffen; René van Oerle; Mathie P G Leers; Johannes A Kragten; Harry Crijns; Henri M H Spronk; Hugo Ten Cate Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gaurav Aggarwal; Sri Harsha Patlolla; Saurabh Aggarwal; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Rajkumar Doshi; Pranathi R Sundaragiri; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Allan S Jaffe; Gregory W Barsness; Marc Cohen; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 5.501