BackgroundOral anticoagulation in addition to antiplatelet treatment after an acute coronary syndrome might reduce ischaemic events but increase bleeding risk. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding direct thrombin or factor-Xa inhibition by any of the novel oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, darexaban, rivaroxaban, and ximelagatran) to single (aspirin) or dual (aspirin and clopidogrel) antiplatelet therapy in this setting.Methods and resultsAll seven published randomized, placebo-controlled phase II and III studies of novel oral anticoagulants in acute coronary syndromes were included. The database consisted of 30 866 patients, 4135 (13.4%) on single, and 26 731 (86.6%) on dual antiplatelet therapy, with a non-ST- or ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome within the last 7–14 days. We defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and clinically significant bleeding as the composite of major and non-major bleeding requiring medical attention according to the study definitions. When compared with aspirin alone the combination of an oral anticoagulant and aspirin reduced the incidence of MACE [hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval 0.70; 0.59–0.84], but increased clinically significant bleeding (HR: 1.79; 1.54–2.09). Compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel, adding an oral anticoagulant decreased the incidence of MACE modestly (HR: 0.87; 0.80–0.95), but more than doubled the bleeding (HR: 2.34; 2.06–2.66). Heterogeneity between studies was low, and results were similar when restricting the analysis to phase III studies.ConclusionIn patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of a new oral anticoagulant to antiplatelet therapy results in a modest reduction in cardiovascular events but a substantial increase in bleeding, most pronounced when new oral anticoagulants are combined with dual antiplatelet therapy.
A few studies have examined biomarkers in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and peripheral artery disease (PAD), i.e. multisite artery disease (MSAD). The aim of the study was firstly, to associate biomarkers with the occurrence of PAD/MSAD and secondly, if those can, in addition to clinical characteristics, identify MI patients with MSAD.In two prospectively observational studies including unselected patients with recent MI, PAD was defined as an abnormal ankle-brachial index (ABI) score (<0.9 or >1.4). The proximity extension assay (PEA) technique was used, simultaneously analyzing 92 biomarkers with association to cardiovascular disease. Biomarkers were tested for univariate associations with PAD. Random forest was used to identify biomarkers with a higher association to PAD. The additional discriminatory accuracy of adding biomarkers to clinical characteristics was analyzed by the cstatistics. Nine biomarkers were identified as significantly associated with MSAD/PAD in the primary patient cohort, analyzed early after the MI. In the prediction analysis, six biomarkers were identified associated with PAD. Three of these; Tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFR-1), Tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (TNFR-2) and Growth Differentiation Factor 15 (GDF-15) improved c-statistics when added to clinical characteristics from 0.683 (95% CI 0.610-0.756) to 0.715 (95% CI 0.645-0.784) in the primary patient cohort with a similar result, 0.729 (95% CI 0.687-0.770) to 0.752 (95% CI 0.771-0.792) in the secondary patient cohort. Biomarkers associated with inflammatory pathways are associated with MSAD in MI patients. Three biomarkers of 92; TNFR-1, TNFR-2 and GDF-15, in this exploratory added information in the prediction of MSAD and emphasis the importance of further studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.