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.

Thrombotic events associated with low baseline direct oral anticoagulant levels in atrial fibrillations: the MAS study

More Early Bleeds Associated With High Baseline Direct Oral Anticoagulant Levels In Atrial Fibrillation: The Mas Study

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Direct Oral Anticoagulants May Increase Their Benefit-Risk Ratio

Direct oral anticoagulants and therapeutic adherence: do not let your guard down

Relationship between electronically monitored adherence to direct oral anticoagulants and ischemic or hemorrhagic events after an initial ischemic stroke—A case control study

Baseline Characteristics and 3-Year Outcome of Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with the Four Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs)

Time to benefit and harm of direct oral anticoagulants in device-detected atrial fibrillation: A pooled analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials

Direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with device-detected atrial fibrillation: assessing net clinical benefit

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

Lower Rate of Major Bleeding in Very High-Risk Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Propensity-Matched Comparison with Direct Oral Anticoagulation.

Results from the START2-AF Registry

Retrospective study of clinical settings, indications and consequences of measurement of direct oral anticoagulant plasma levels in Northern Tasmania, Australia

Is percutaneous coronary intervention safe during uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndromes?

Management of Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice and Challenging Scenarios

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

Anticoagulation Usage and Thrombolytic Therapy in Subjects with Atrial Fibrillation Associated Ischaemic Stroke.

Assessment of the efficiency and safety of anti-coagulation therapy in patients with liver cirrhosis and atrial fibrillation

Anticoagulation in device-detected atrial fibrillation with or without vascular disease: a combined analysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESiA trials

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

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion vs Standard of Care After Ischemic Stroke Despite Anticoagulation

Predictors of Plasma Levels of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Need of Elective Cardiac Procedures