Dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy post-PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with or without diabetes mellitus in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether dual therapy is as safe and efficacious as triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.METHODS: In RE-DUAL PCI, 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation (993 with diabetes) who had undergone PCI were assigned to warfarin triple therapy (warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin) or dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg twice daily and clopidogrel or ticagrelor). Median follow-up was 13 months. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and the main efficacy outcome was the composite of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization.RESULTS: Among patients with diabetes, the incidence of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was 15.2% in the dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy group versus 27.5% in the warfarin triple therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.67) and 23.8% in the dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy group versus 25.1% in the warfarin triple therapy group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.22). Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was also reduced with both dabigatran doses among patients without diabetes (dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.70; dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83). Risk for the efficacy endpoint was comparable between treatment groups for both patients with and those without diabetes. No interaction between treatment and diabetes subgroup could be observed, either for bleeding or for composite efficacy endpoints.CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, dabigatran dual therapy had a lower risk for bleeding and a comparable rate of the efficacy endpoint compared with warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

Presence of peripheral artery disease is associated with increased risk of heart failure events: insights from EMPEROR-Pooled

No abstract available

The effect of sex on the efficacy and safety of dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran versus triple therapy with warfarin after PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation (a RE-DUAL PCI subgroup analysis and comparison to other dual antithrombotic therapy trials)

BACKGROUND: The RE‐DUAL PCI trial demonstrated that in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y(12) inhibitor, either clopidogrel or ticagrelor, reduced the risk of bleeding without an increased risk of thromboembolic events as compared to triple therapy with warfarin in addition to a P2Y(12) inhibitor and aspirin. What remains unclear is whether this effect is consistent between males and females undergoing PCI. HYPOTHESIS: The reduction in risk of bleeding without increased risk of thromboembolic events with dual therapy with dabigatran and a P2Y(12) inhibitor in comparison to triple therapy with warfarin, a P2Y(12) inhibitor and aspirin is consistent in females and males. METHODS: The primary safety endpoint was the first International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant non‐major bleeding event (CRNMBE). The efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, thromboembolic event (stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism) or unplanned revascularization. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were applied to calculate corresponding hazard ratios and interaction p values for each endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 655 women and 2070 men were enrolled. The risk of major or CRNM bleeding was lower with both dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy and dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in female and male patients (for 110 mg: females: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–1.01, males: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.37–0.59, interaction p value: 0.084 and for 150 mg: females HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48–1.16, males HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56–0.90, interaction p value: 0.83). There was also no detectable difference in the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events or unplanned revascularization between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy, with no statistically significant interaction between sex and treatment (interaction p values: 0.73 and 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the overall study results, the risk of bleeding was lower with dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy, and risk of thromboembolic events was comparable with warfarin triple therapy independent of the patient's sex

Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly: Proceedings of the European Society of Cardiology-Cardiovascular Round Table

This article was generated from discussions during a virtual Cardiovascular Round Table (CRT) workshop organized in May 2021 by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).International audienceThe growing elderly population worldwide represents a major challenge for caregivers, healthcare providers, and society. Older patients have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular (CV) disease, high rates of CV risk factors, and multiple age-related comorbidities. Although prevention and management strategies have been shown to be effective in older people they continue to be under-used, and under-studied. In addition to hard endpoints, frailty, cognitive impairments, and patients’ re-assessment of important outcomes (e.g., quality of life versus longevity) are important aspects for older patients and emphasize the need to include a substantial proportion of older patients in CV clinical trials. To complement the often skewed age distribution in clinical trials, greater emphasis should be placed on real-world studies to assess longer-term outcomes, especially safety and quality of life outcomes. In the complex environment of the older patient, a multidisciplinary care team approach with the involvement of the individual patient in decision-making process can help optimize prevention and management strategies. This paper aims to demonstrate the growing burden of ageing in real life and illustrates the need to continue primary prevention to address cardiovascular risk factors. It summarizes factors to consider when choosing pharmacological and interventional treatments in the elderly, and the need to consider quality of life and patient priorities when making decisions

Uninterrupted Dabigatran versus Warfarin for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is typically performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin or interrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy. Uninterrupted anticoagulation with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, such as dabigatran, may be safer; however, controlled data are lacking. We investigated the safety of uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation. METHODS In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled trial with blinded adjudicated end-point assessments, we randomly assigned patients scheduled for catheter ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to receive either dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Ablation was performed after 4 to 8 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation, which was continued during and for 8 weeks after ablation. The primary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation; secondary end points included thromboembolic and other bleeding events. RESULTS The trial enrolled 704 patients across 104 sites; 635 patients underwent ablation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. The incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation was lower with dabigatran than with warfarin (5 patients [1.6%] vs. 22 patients [6.9%]; absolute risk difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -2.2; P <0.001). Dabigatran was associated with fewer periprocedural pericardial tamponades and groin hematomas than warfarin. The two treatment groups had a similar incidence of minor bleeding events. One thromboembolic event occurred in the warfarin group. CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation with uninterrupted dabigatran was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfari

Antithrombotic therapy according to baseline bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: applying the PRECISE-DAPT score in RE-DUAL PCI

AIMS Patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary intervention are at higher bleeding risk due to the concomitant need for oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. The RE-DUAL PCI trial demonstrated better safety with dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT: dabigatran 110 or 150 mg bid, clopidogrel or ticagrelor) compared to triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT: warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin). We explored the impact of baseline bleeding risk based on the PRECISE-DAPT score for decision-making regarding DAT vs. TAT. METHODS AND RESULTS A score ≥25 points qualified high bleeding-risk (HBR). Comparisons were made for the primary safety endpoint ISTH major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and the composite efficacy endpoint of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization, analyzed by time-to-event analysis. PRECISE-DAPT was available in 2,336/2,725 patients, and 37.9% were HBR. Compared to TAT, DAT with dabigatran 110 mg reduced bleeding risk both in non-HBR (HR 0.42, 95%CI, 0.31-0.57) and HBR (HR 0.70, 95%CI, 0.52-0.94), with a greater magnitude of benefit among non-HBR (Pint=0.02). DAT with dabigatran 150 mg vs. TAT reduced bleeding in non-HBR (HR 0.60, 95%CI, 0.45-0.80), with a trend toward less benefit in HBR patients (HR 0.92, 95%CI, 0.63-1.34, Pint=0.08). Risk of ischaemic events was similar on DAT with dabigatran (both 110 and 150 mg) vs. TAT in non-HBR and HBR patients (Pint=0.45 and Pint=0.56, respectively). CONCLUSIONS PRECISE-DAPT score appeared useful to identify AF patients undergoing PCI at further increased risk of bleeding complications, and may help clinicians identifying the antithrombotic regimen intensity with the best benefit-risk ratio in an individual patient

Dabigatran dual therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in atrial fibrillation patients with or without acute coronary syndrome: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial

Aims: After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation, safety and efficacy with dabigatran dual therapy were evaluated in pre-specified subgroups of patients undergoing PCI due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or elective PCI, and those receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel treatment. Methods and results: In the RE-DUAL PCI trial, 2725 patients were randomized to dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg with P2Y12 inhibitor, or warfarin with P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin. Mean follow-up was 14 months, 50.5% had ACS, and 12% received ticagrelor. The risk of the primary endpoint, major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event, was reduced with both dabigatran dual therapies vs. warfarin triple therapy in patients with ACS [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.47 (0.35–0.63) for 110 mg and 0.67 (0.50–0.90) for 150 mg]; elective PCI [0.57 (0.43–0.76) for 110 mg and 0.76 (0.56–1.03) for 150 mg]; receiving ticagrelor [0.46 (0.28–0.76) for 110 mg and 0.59 (0.34–1.04) for 150 mg]; or clopidogrel [0.51 (0.41–0.64) for 110 mg and 0.73 (0.58–0.91) for 150 mg], all interaction P-values >0.10. Overall, dabigatran dual therapy was comparable to warfarin triple therapy for the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or unplanned revascularization, with minor variations across the subgroups, all interaction P-values >0.10. Conclusion: The benefits of both dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in reducing bleeding risks were consistent across subgroups of patients with or without ACS, and patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel

Comparison of the Effect of Age (< 75 Versus >= 75) on the Efficacy and Safety of Dual Therapy (Dabigatran plus Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) Versus Triple Therapy (Warfarin plus Aspirin plus Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor) in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the RE-DUAL PCI Trial)

The RE-DUAL PCI trial reported that dabigatran dual therapy (110/150 mg twice daily, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) reduced bleeding events versus warfarin triple therapy (warfarin plus aspirin and Clopidogrel or ticagrelor) in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, with noninferiority in composite thromboembolic events. In this prespecified analysis, risks of first major or clinically relevant norunajor bleeding event and composite end point of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization were compared between dabigatran dual therapy and warfarin triple therapy in older (&gt;= 75 years) and younger (&lt; 75 years) patients, using Cox proportional hazard regression. Of 2,725 patients randomized to treatment, 1,026 (37.7 %) were categorized into older and 1,699 (623%) into younger age groups. Dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in older (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.89) and younger patients (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54); interaction p value: 0.0125. Dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy lowered bleeding risk versus warfarin triple therapy in younger patients (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74), whereas no benefit could be observed in older patients (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.77); interaction p value: 0.0013. For the thromboembolic end point, there was a trend for a higher risk with dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy in older patients, compared with warfarin triple therapy, whereas the risk was similar in younger patients. For dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy, the thromboembolic risk versus warfarin triple therapy was similar in older and younger patients. In conclusion, the benefits of dabigatran dual therapy differed in the 2 age groups, which may help dose selection when using dabigatran dual therapy. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc

Effect of Lesion Complexity and Clinical Risk Factors on the Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran Dual Therapy Versus Warfarin Triple Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Subgroup Analysis From the REDUAL PCI Trial

BackgroundThe REDUAL PCI trial (Evaluation of Dual Therapy With Dabigatran vs Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With AF That Undergo a PCI With Stenting) demonstrated that, in patients with atrial fibrillation following percutaneous coronary intervention, bleeding risk was lower with dabigatran plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor (dual therapy) than warfarin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor and aspirin (triple therapy). Dual therapy was noninferior for risk of thromboembolic events. Whether these results apply equally to patients at higher risk of ischemic events due to lesion complexity or clinical risk factors is unclear.MethodsThe primary end point was time to first major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event. The composite efficacy end point was death, thromboembolic event, or unplanned revascularization. Our prespecified subgroup analysis categorized patients by presence of procedural complexity and/or clinical complexity factors at baseline. A modified dual antiplatelet therapy score categorized patients according to degree of clinical risk.ResultsOf 2725 patients, 43.1% had clinical complexity factors alone, 9.9% procedural factors alone, 10.0% both, and 37.0% neither. Risk of the primary bleeding end point was lower in both dabigatran dual therapy groups than warfarin triple therapy groups, regardless of procedural and/or clinical lesion complexity (interaction P values: 0.90 and 0.37, respectively). Importantly, a similar risk of the efficacy end point was observed between dabigatran dual and warfarin triple therapy, regardless of the presence of clinical or procedural complexity factors (interaction P values: 0.67 and 0.54, dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively). Similar benefit was seen for each dose of dabigatran dual therapy for bleeding events regardless of dual antiplatelet therapy score (interaction P values: 0.53 and 0.54, respectively), with similar risk of thromboembolic events (interaction P values: 0.20 and 0.08, respectively).ConclusionsIn patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy reduced bleeding risk compared with warfarin triple therapy, with a similar risk of thromboembolic outcomes, irrespective of procedural and/or clinical complexity and modified dual antiplatelet therapy score. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Unique identifier: NCT02164864