Abstract:Background Antithrombotic treatment with oral anticoagulants is recommended in clinical practice guidelines for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and concurrent atrial fibrillation (AF). Previous randomized controlled trials comparing warfarin and DOAC have primarily focused on bleeding complications. Consequently, the benefits and risks in an all-comer population remain uncertain. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate adherence to clinical practice guidelines within a large nationwide cohort and to compare outcomes among patients with MI and AF who were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), Warfarin, or DOAC. Method We utilized data from the nationwide SWEDEHEART registry to identify all patients with MI and AF between January 2010 and January 2021. We included all patients who underwent PCI and had a CHA2DS2-VASC score of ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women. The follow-up was one year. Patients were allocated into one of three antithrombotic treatment groups based on discharge medications: (1) Warfarin-based, (2) DOAC-based, and (3) DAPT only. The warfarin- and DOAC-based groups comprised patients on either dual or triple antithrombotic therapy. Study outcomes included: (1) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke; (2) net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), which included MACE and bleeding complications; and (3) the individual components of MACE and NACE. Cox regression models were used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Results Mean age among the 12,321 patients included was 76.1 years. At discharge, 3,563 (29%) were treated with warfarin, 3,671 (30%) received DOAC treatment, and 5,087 (41%) with DAPT alone. The percentage of patients treated with OAC increased from 30% in 2010 to 84% in 2021. Warfarin- and DOAC-based strategies were associated with lower MACE compared to DAPT alone, with adjusted hazard ratios [HR] (95% CI) of 0.77 (0.69-0.97) and 0.78 (0.69-0.90), respectively, as well as lower rates of NACE with adjusted [HR] (95% CI) of 0.84 (0.76-0.93) 0.84 (0.75-0.94), respectively. This difference was primarily driven by a difference in mortality, with adjusted ]HR] (95% CI) of 0.78 (0.67-0.91) and 0.80 (0.68-0.94), respectively. There were significantly fewer stroke events in the DOAC group (2.5 % vs 3.3%) compared with DAPT. No significant differences in bleeding events were observed between any of the treatment groups. Conclusions In this real-life retrospective study, we observed an increased utilization of guideline recommended OAC treatment over time. Both DOAC and warfarin treatment regimens were associated with a lower incidence of MACE and NACE compared to DAPT alone. No significant difference in outcomes were observed comparing DOAC vs Warfarin.

Meta‐Analysis Comparing Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy Versus Dual Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Dual therapy with oral anticoagulation and single antiplatelet agent versus monotherapy with oral anticoagulation alone in patients with atrial fibrillation and stable ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dual vs triple antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of stroke in AF with arterial origin stroke: a meta-analysis.

Effect of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with a History of Intracranial Hemorrhage: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulants and Adverse Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Intracranial Hemorrhage

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention

Efficacy and Safety of Antithrombotic Regimens after Coronary Intervention in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation: Traditional and Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Efficacy and Safety of Antithrombotic Therapy With Oral Anticoagulants in Real-World Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Atrial Fibrillation

An Updated Meta-Analysis on the Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Clinical Outcomes of Antithrombotic Strategies for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Optimal Antithrombotic Therapy Beyond 1-Year After Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Comparative Analysis of Anticoagulation Versus Combination Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Presenting With Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Outcomes of left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials

Anticoagulant monotherapy versus anticoagulant therapy in combination with single antiplatelet agent in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting - analysis of real-world data

Safety of the direct-acting anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.

Anticoagulant in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Prior Intracranial Haemorrhage: a Meta-Analysis

Combined use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet on outcome after stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and systemic atherosclerosis

Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage

Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA Trials

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation