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.

A Comparison of Oral Anticoagulant Use for Atrial Fibrillation in the Pre- and Post-DOAC Eras

Trends over time in oral anticoagulation and stroke rates in atrial fibrillation: A community-based study

Changes in anticoagulation practice in subjects admitted with stroke associated with atrial fibrillation, following introduction of direct oral anticoagulants over 2013-2021

Racial Disparities and Trends in Anticoagulant Use among Ambulatory Care Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter in the United States from 2007-2019

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

Comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a Canadian multicentre observational cohort study

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

Comparing DOAC and warfarin outcomes in an obese population using the 'real-world' Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) registry

Comparison of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

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

Changes in the landscape of anticoagulation: a focus on direct oral anticoagulants

Changes in Oral Anticoagulation Therapy over One Year in 51,000 Atrial Fibrillation Patients at Risk for Stroke: A Practice-Derived Study

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

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

Oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation early after valvular intervention: a nationwide cohort study

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

Advancing Pharmacoequity in Atrial Fibrillation

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

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 Anticoagulation vs Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage

Direct oral anticoagulant: Looking beyond convenience