PURLs

Monotherapy for nonvalvular A-fib with stable CAD?

Author and Disclosure Information

A meta-analysis found oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy provided efficacy comparable to OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy—with lower bleeding risk.

PRACTICE CHANGER

Recommend the use of a single oral anticoagulant (OAC) over combination therapy with an OAC and an antiplatelet agent for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable ischemic heart disease (IHD). Doing so may confer the same benefits with fewer risks.

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION

A: Meta-analysis of 7 trials1

Lee SR, Rhee TM, Kang DY, et al. Meta-analysis of oral anticoagulant monotherapy as an antithrombotic strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124:879-885. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.05.072


 

References

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 67-year-old man with a history of coronary artery stenting 7 years prior and nonvalvular AF that is well controlled with a beta-blocker comes in for a routine health maintenance visit. You note that the patient takes warfarin, metoprolol, and aspirin. The patient has not had any thrombotic or bleeding events in his lifetime. Does this patient need to take both warfarin and aspirin? Do the antithrombotic benefits of dual therapy outweigh the risk of bleeding?

Antiplatelet agents have long been recommended for secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with IHD. The goal is to reduce the risk of coronary artery thrombosis.2 Many patients with IHD also develop AF and are treated with OACs such as warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to prevent thromboembolic events.

There has been a paucity of data to determine the risks and benefits of OAC monotherapy compared to OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT). Given research that shows increased risks of bleeding and all-cause mortality when aspirin is used for primary prevention of CV disease,3,4 it is prudent to examine if the harms of aspirin outweigh its benefits for the secondary prevention of acute coronary events in patients already taking antithrombotic agents.

STUDY SUMMARY

Reduced bleeding risk, with no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events

This study by Lee and colleagues1 was a meta-analysis of 8855 patients with nonvalvular AF and stable coronary artery disease (CAD), from 6 trials comparing OAC monotherapy vs OAC plus SAPT. The meta-analysis involved 3 studies using patient registries, 2 cohort studies, and an open-label randomized trial that together spanned the period from 2002 to 2016. The longest study period was 9 years (1 study) and the shortest, 1 year (2 studies). Oral anticoagulation consisted of either vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy (the majority of the patients studied) or DOAC therapy (8.6% of the patients studied). SAPT was either aspirin or clopidogrel.

The primary outcome measure was major adverse CV events (MACE). Secondary outcome measures included major bleeding, stroke, all-cause mortality, and net adverse events. The definitions used by the studies for major bleeding were deemed “largely consistent” with the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding criteria, ie, fatal bleeding, symptomatic bleeding in a critical area or organ (intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intra-articular, pericardial, or intramuscular causing compartment syndrome), or a drop in hemoglobin (≥ 2 g/dL or requiring transfusion of ≥ 2 units of whole blood or red cells).5

This study strongly suggests that there is a large subgroup of patients with stable CAD for whom single antiplatelet therapy should not be prescribed as a preventive medication.

There was no difference in MACE between the monotherapy and OAC plus SAPT groups (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92-1.29). Similarly, there were no differences in stroke and all-cause mortality between the groups. However, there was a significant association of higher risk of major bleeding (HR = 1.61; 95% CI, 1.38-1.87) and net adverse events (HR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.43) in the OAC plus SAPT group compared with the OAC monotherapy group.

This study’s limitations included its low percentage of patients taking a DOAC. Also, due to variations in methods of reporting CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores among the studies (for risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic AF and for risk of bleeding in AF patients taking anticoagulants), this meta-analysis could not determine if different outcomes might be found in patients with different CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

Pages

Copyright © 2021. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Online-Only Materials

AttachmentSize
PDF icon jfp07010403_methodology.pdf223.9 KB

Recommended Reading

Rivaroxaban’s single daily dose may lead to higher bleeding risk than other DOACs
MDedge Family Medicine
USPSTF rules out aspirin for over 60s in primary CVD prevention
MDedge Family Medicine
Omega-3s tame inflammation in elderly COVID-19 patients
MDedge Family Medicine
New FDA guidance aims to cut sodium in processed foods
MDedge Family Medicine
Study points to ideal age for CAC testing in young adults
MDedge Family Medicine
Lupin recalls irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide/irbesartan tablets
MDedge Family Medicine
Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation
MDedge Family Medicine
AHA: Quality of STEMI care has stalled, needs improvement
MDedge Family Medicine
Preterm delivery raises lifetime hypertension risk
MDedge Family Medicine
No benefit from lower temps for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
MDedge Family Medicine