Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND Choosing an antithrombotic regimen after coronary intervention in patients with concomitant indication for anticoagulation is a challenge commonly encountered by clinicians. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials comparing outcomes of triple therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) with dual therapy (single antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) in patients taking long-term anticoagulants after percutaneous coronary intervention. Major bleeding was the primary outcome. Random effects overall risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird model. RESULTS Nine observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials with a total of 7276 patients met our selection criteria. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months major bleeding was higher in the triple therapy cohort compared with dual therapy (6.6% vs 3.8%; RR 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.98; P <.01). No difference was observed between the 2 groups for all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.43; P = .93), major adverse cardiac events (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.8-1.32; P = .83), thromboembolic events (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.49-2.10; P = .96), myocardial infarction (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.09; P = .21), stent thrombosis (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46-1.3; P = .33), and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15; P = .33). CONCLUSION In patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, a strategy of single antiplatelet therapy confers a benefit of less major bleeding with no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or thromboembolic event rate compared with dual antiplatelet therapy.