Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025
Single vs. dual antithrombotic therapy in patients with oral anticoagulation and stabilized coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gargiulo Giuseppe, Piccolo Raffaele, Park Duk-Woo, Nam Gi-Byoung, Okumura Yasuo, Esposito Giovanni, Valgimigli Marco
Аннотация
AIMS: Despite consistent recommendations from clinical guidelines, data from randomized trials on a long-term antithrombotic treatment strategy for patients with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and stabilized coronary artery disease (CAD) are still limited and underpowered for ischaemic events. Therefore, we investigated the safety and efficacy of single vs. dual antithrombotic therapy (SAT vs. DAT) in patients with OAC and stabilized CAD.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for randomized clinical trials comparing SAT vs. DAT in patients with OAC and stabilized CAD.
RESULTS: Five trials encompassing 5758 patients (SAT = 2897 vs. DAT = 2861) were included. The predominant indication of OAC was atrial fibrillation (n = 5495, 95.4%). Most of the patients had prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (81.1%). The primary safety outcome (trial-defined major bleeding) was lower with SAT compared with DAT [hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.40-0.83; P < 0.001; I2 = 65.9%] as was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.400.96; P = 0.03; I2 = 54.6%). There were no differences between the groups in terms of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and the trial-defined composite of major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings were consistent among sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: In OAC patients with stabilized CAD, largely due to atrial fibrillation and prior (6-12 months) PCI, SAT is associated with lower major bleeding without increased risk of ischaemic complications compared with DAT.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed to search for randomized clinical trials comparing SAT vs. DAT in patients with OAC and stabilized CAD.
RESULTS: Five trials encompassing 5758 patients (SAT = 2897 vs. DAT = 2861) were included. The predominant indication of OAC was atrial fibrillation (n = 5495, 95.4%). Most of the patients had prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (81.1%). The primary safety outcome (trial-defined major bleeding) was lower with SAT compared with DAT [hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.40-0.83; P < 0.001; I2 = 65.9%] as was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.400.96; P = 0.03; I2 = 54.6%). There were no differences between the groups in terms of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and the trial-defined composite of major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings were consistent among sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: In OAC patients with stabilized CAD, largely due to atrial fibrillation and prior (6-12 months) PCI, SAT is associated with lower major bleeding without increased risk of ischaemic complications compared with DAT.