Die Pharmazie · 2019
Triple versus dual oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Dong Ying, Wang Y I, -Lian Rui Ma, Cao Zhong -Chao, Huang Zhi -Chun, Ren Xian -Hua, Liu Xiao -Lei, Sun Jian -Jun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of dual therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT] and warfarin plus single antiplatelet [WS]) versus triple therapy (TT, DAPT plus warfarin) are still debated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal antithrombotic strategy.
METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data) were searched to retrieve studies on the efficacy and safety of TT vs. dual therapy in patients with AF undergoing PCI until August 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and major bleeding events.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies involving 21,167 patients were included. The TT group had a significantly lower risk of MACEs (P=0.024) but a higher risk of major bleeding (P<0.001). In TT vs. DAPT subgroup, TT was associated with a lower risk of MI and stent thrombosis in Asian patients and a lower risk of stroke in non-Asian patients. Furthermore, TT did not decrease MACEs incidence (P=0.458) but increased the risk of major bleeding (P=0.008) relative to WS. The same trends were observed in Asian and non-Asian patients.
CONCLUSION: Patients with AF undergoing PCI who received TT had significant reduction in MACEs but increased the risk of major bleeding compared with DAPT. However, WS had a similar efficacy but reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with TT. Current evidence suggests that TT might not be required and might be replaced by WS.
METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang Data) were searched to retrieve studies on the efficacy and safety of TT vs. dual therapy in patients with AF undergoing PCI until August 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and major bleeding events.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies involving 21,167 patients were included. The TT group had a significantly lower risk of MACEs (P=0.024) but a higher risk of major bleeding (P<0.001). In TT vs. DAPT subgroup, TT was associated with a lower risk of MI and stent thrombosis in Asian patients and a lower risk of stroke in non-Asian patients. Furthermore, TT did not decrease MACEs incidence (P=0.458) but increased the risk of major bleeding (P=0.008) relative to WS. The same trends were observed in Asian and non-Asian patients.
CONCLUSION: Patients with AF undergoing PCI who received TT had significant reduction in MACEs but increased the risk of major bleeding compared with DAPT. However, WS had a similar efficacy but reduced the risk of major bleeding compared with TT. Current evidence suggests that TT might not be required and might be replaced by WS.