[Anticoagulation Status and Adherence in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Hospitalized for ACS and the Impact on 1-Year Prognosis: a Multicenter Cohort Study].
L Y Zhu,Q Li,L Y Yu,Y Liu,Y N Chen,Z Wang,S Y Zhang,J Li,Y L Zhao,Y Xi,L Pi,Y H Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20230314-00138
2023-01-01
Abstract:Objective: For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), both anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy should be applied, but the use of anticoagulation therapy is still poor in these patients in China. The purpose of this study was to explore the status and adherence of antithrombotic therapy in AF patients with ACS and the impact on 1 year clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with AF hospitalized for ACS were retrospectively included from 6 tertiary hospitals in China between July 2015 and December 2020. According to the use of anticoagulant drugs at discharge, patients were divided into two groups: anticoagulant treatment group and non-anticoagulant treatment group. Logistic regression model was used to analyze the main factors influencing the use of anticoagulant drugs in patients with atrial fibrillation complicated with ACS. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, and ischemic stroke and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 bleeding events were also collected at 1 year after discharge. After propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier analysis were used to evaluate the effect of anticoagulant treatment and non-anticoagulant treatment on 1-year prognosis. The patients were divided into different groups according to whether anticoagulation was performed at discharge and follow-up, and the sensitivity of the results was analyzed. Results: A total of 664 patients were enrolled, and 273 (41.1%) were treated with anticoagulant therapy, of whom 84 (30.8%) received triple antithrombotic therapy, 91 (33.3%) received double antithrombotic therapy (single antiplatelet combined with anticoagulant), and 98 (35.9%) received single anticoagulant therapy. Three hundred and ninety-one (58.9%) patients were treated with antiplatelet therapy, including 253 (64.7%) with dual antiplatelet therapy and 138 (35.3%) with single antiplatelet therapy. After 1∶1 propensity score matching between the anticoagulant group and the non-anticoagulant group, a total of 218 pairs were matched. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that history of diabetes, HAS-BLED score≥3, and percutaneous coronary intervention were predictors of the absence of anticoagulant therapy, while history of ischemic stroke and persistent atrial fibrillation were predictors of anticoagulant therapy. At 1-year follow-up, 218 patients (79.9%) in the anticoagulant group continued to receive anticoagulant therapy, and 333 patients (85.2%) in the antiplatelet group continued to receive antiplatelet therapy. At 1-year follow-up, 36 MACEs events (13.2%) occurred in the anticoagulant group, and 81 MACEs events (20.7%) in the non-anticoagulant group. HR values and confidence intervals were calculated by Cox proportional risk model. Patients in the non-anticoagulant group faced a higher risk of MACEs (HR=1.802, 95%CI 1.112-2.921, P=0.017), and the risk of bleeding events was similar between the two group (HR=0.825,95%CI 0.397-1.715, P=0.607). Conclusions: History of diabetes, HAS-BLED score≥3, and percutaneous coronary intervention are independent factors for the absence of anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF complicated with ACS. The incidence of MACEs, death and myocardial infarction is lower in the anticoagulant group, and the incidence of bleeding events is similar between the two groups. The risk of bleeding and ischemia/thrombosis should be dynamically assessed during follow-up and antithrombotic regiments should be adjusted accordingly.