Search

The aim of this study was to explore the early versus late benefits and risks of dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy 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. Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events. A total of 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were randomized to receive dabigatran 110 mg, or dabigatran 150 mg plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor (and no aspirin), or warfarin plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor plus aspirin. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 and 90 days. There was a consistent and large reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in patients randomized to dual therapy during the first 30 days (110 mg: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.66; p < 0.0001; 150 mg: HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72; p = 0.0006) compared with warfarin triple therapy. There was early net clinical benefit in both dabigatran groups versus warfarin (110 mg: HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88; p = 0.0062; 150 mg: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79; p = 0.0015), due to larger reductions in bleeding than increased thrombotic events for dabigatran 110 mg and bleeding reduction without increased thrombotic risk for dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy. After the removal of aspirin in the warfarin group, bleeding remained lower with dabigatran 110 mg and was similar with dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin. In RE-DUAL PCI, in which patients in the dual-therapy arms were treated with aspirin for an average of only 1.6 days, there was early net clinical benefit with both doses of dabigatran dual therapy, without an increase in thrombotic events with dabigatran 150 mg. This could be helpful in the subset of patients with elevated risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess if prior oral anticoagulant agent (OAC) use modifies the lower bleeding risk observed with dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran twice daily plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor) versus warfarin triple therapy (warfarin plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor plus aspirin) in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 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, the primary outcome of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was lower with dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent PCI. A total of 2,725 patients were randomized to dual therapy with dabigatran (110 or 150 mg twice daily) plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor or triple therapy with warfarin plus aspirin and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Subgroup analysis compared risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and a composite thromboembolic endpoint in patients with prior OAC use and in those who were OAC treatment naive. Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was reduced with both dabigatran dual therapies compared with warfarin triple therapy in both the prior OAC use group (hazard ratios: 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42 to 0.81] and 0.61 [95% CI: 0.41 to 0.92] with 110 and 150 mg dabigatran, respectively) and the OAC-naive group (hazard ratios: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.38 to 0.63] and 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59 to 0.97] with 110 and 150 mg dabigatran) (p for interaction = 0.42 and 0.37, 110 and 150 mg dabigatran, respectively). The risk for thromboembolic events seemed similar with dabigatran dual therapy (both doses) and warfarin triple therapy across subgroups. Bleeding risk was reduced with dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation after PCI, regardless of whether they were prior OAC users or OAC treatment naive. These results suggest that it is also safe to switch patients on OAC pre-PCI to dabigatran dual therapy post-PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the RE-DUAL PCI trial of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg bid, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) reduced International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding events compared with warfarin triple therapy, with noninferiority in overall thromboembolic events. This analysis assessed outcomes in relation to patient bleeding and stroke risk profiles, based on the modified HAS-BLED and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores. The primary endpoint, major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event (CRNMBE), was compared across study arms in patients categorized by modified HAS-BLED score 0-2 or ≥3. The composite endpoint of death, thromboembolic event, and unplanned revascularization rates was compared in patients categorized by CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 0-1, 2, or ≥3. Risk of MBE or CRNMBE was lower with dabigatran dual therapy (both doses) versus warfarin triple therapy, irrespective of modified HAS-BLED category (treatment-by-subgroup interaction P -value 0.584 and 0.273 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin). Risk of the composite thromboembolic endpoint was similar across CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc categories and consistent with overall study results (interaction P -value 0.739 and 0.075 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin). Higher HAS-BLED scores were associated with higher risks of bleeding in AF patients after PCI in a treatment-independent analysis. Dabigatran dual therapy reduced bleeding events irrespective of bleeding risk category and demonstrated similar efficacy regardless of stroke risk category when compared with warfarin triple therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the RE-DUAL PCI trial of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), dabigatran dual therapy (110 or 150 mg bid, plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor) reduced International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding events compared with warfarin triple therapy, with noninferiority in overall thromboembolic events. This analysis assessed outcomes in relation to patient bleeding and stroke risk profiles, based on the modified HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores.Methods: The primary endpoint, major bleeding event (MBE) or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event (CRNMBE), was compared across study arms in patients categorized by modified HAS-BLED score 0-2 or ≥3. The composite endpoint of death, thromboembolic event, and unplanned revascularization rates was compared in patients categorized by CHA2DS2-VASc score 0-1, 2, or ≥3.Results: Risk of MBE or CRNMBE was lower with dabigatran dual therapy (both doses) versus warfarin triple therapy, irrespective of modified HAS-BLED category (treatment-by-subgroup interaction P-value 0.584 and 0.273 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin). Risk of the composite thromboembolic endpoint was similar across CHA2DS2-VASc categories and consistent with overall study results (interaction P-value 0.739 and 0.075 for dabigatran 110 and 150 mg dual therapy, respectively, vs warfarin). Higher HAS-BLED scores were associated with higher risks of bleeding in AF patients after PCI in a treatment-independent analysis.Conclusion: Dabigatran dual therapy reduced bleeding events irrespective of bleeding risk category and demonstrated similar efficacy regardless of stroke risk category when compared with warfarin triple therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There are limited data on uninterrupted anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly in Japan. We planned a subgroup analysis of the RE‐CIRCUIT study, comparing the use of uninterrupted dabigatran therapy with warfarin therapy during catheter ablation among the Japanese subgroup and with that in the total population. Methods: The RE‐CIRCUIT study utilized a prospective, randomized, open‐label, blinded endpoint design, and the primary endpoint was the incidence of major bleeding events (MBEs). Patients were randomized to uninterrupted dabigatran 150 mg twice daily or warfarin. In this study, we analyzed the results in Japanese patients. Results: Of 704 enrolled patients in the study, 112 Japanese patients were randomized to dabigatran (n = 65) or warfarin (n = 47). MBEs were experienced by two patients: one in the dabigatran group (1.6%, cardiac tamponade) and one in the warfarin group (2.2%, groin hematoma) (risk difference vs warfarin −0.6%; 95% CI −5.8, 4.7). Within the Japanese subgroup, there were no thromboembolic events in both groups. Conclusion: While not designed to show statistical difference between two treatment groups, our results from the Japanese subgroup supported those from the overall population. Furthermore, this study provided clinical information regarding MBE, especially cardiac tamponade, in Japanese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 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. Methods: The 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. Results: Of 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). Conclusions: In 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]