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.

Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia

Comparison of transesophageal echocardiography findings after different anticoagulation strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bleeding Risks with Novel Oral Anticoagulants During Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Comparison of real-world clinical and economic outcomes in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: A retrospective claims analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists after recent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

Comparison of warfarin versus DOACs in patients with concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing TAVI; results from the ATLAS registry

Comparing Efficacy and Safety Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants or Warfarin After Direct Oral Anticoagulant Failure

Warfarin Vs. Direct Oral Anticoagulants For Left Ventricle Thrombus Treatment

Direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in adults with durable left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

An Evidence-Based Approach to Anticoagulation Therapy Comparing Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Meta-Analysis

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndromes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Comparison of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants on Bleeding and Thrombosis.

Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation or Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Renal Impairment: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis.

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

Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolism in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Valvular Heart Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Clinical Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Operation

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Warfarin among Nursing Home Residents with Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Effectiveness and safety in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in US healthcare claims

Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage

Wound Complications and Bleeding with New Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials