Skip to main content
PMC home page
Korean Circulation Journal logoLink to Korean Circulation Journal
. 2019 Jul 2;49(8):645–656. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2019.0185

The Role of Novel Oral Anticoagulants and Antiplatelet Therapy after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Individualizing Therapy to Optimize Outcomes

Evan Shlofmitz 1, Richard Shlofmitz 2, Michael S Lee 3,✉
PMCID: PMC6675700  PMID: 31347321

Abstract

The number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who mandate additional oral anticoagulant therapy has been increasing. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is associated with reduced ischemic events including stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction and stroke following PCI. However, the tradeoff is an increased risk for bleeding while on DAPT. The addition of a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) further increases the likelihood of bleeding while on antiplatelet therapy. Thus, the overall risks and benefits for each patient undergoing PCI on NOAC must be assessed and therapy individualized to ensure optimal therapy for each unique situation. Patients on NOAC undergoing PCI should undergo routine assessment with intravascular imaging as the role of high-risk lesion-related features have increased importance prior to determining optimal duration of treatment with DAPT. We review the best practices for the pharmacologic management of patients requiring anticoagulation with NOAC who are treated with PCI and require antiplatelet therapy.

Keywords: Antiplatelet therapy, Oral anticoagulant, Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, Percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves placement of a stent in the vast majority of cases. This necessitates pharmacotherapy with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following stent implantation. The number of patients undergoing PCI who mandate additional oral anticoagulant therapy following stent implantation has been on the rise. The addition of oral anticoagulation often requires modification of the antiplatelet regimen to optimize patient outcomes by balancing the risk of bleeding with the risk for ischemic events. We herein review the current best practices for the pharmacologic management of patients requiring anticoagulation with novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) who are treated with PCI.

POPULATION OF INTEREST

The use of NOAC in patients treated with PCI comprise several indications and occurs in approximately 7% of all procedures.1) The most commonly encountered indication for anticoagulation is for the prevention of stroke in the setting of atrial fibrillation (AF) with an elevated CHA2DS2-VASc score. In 2010, AF affected over 6 million Americans, with estimates predicting that by 2050, over 12 million adults in the United States will have AF .2),3) Encounters for patients on NOAC in the cardiac catheterization laboratory also occur in patients requiring treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Off-label use of NOAC also has been reported for the treatment of patients with left ventricular thrombus and for prophylaxis in patients with hereditary hypercoagulable disorders.4),5)

NOVEL ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS

NOAC has become widely adopted since initial approval. They represent a class of drugs that have two unique mechanisms of action; both directly inhibit a single coagulation factor with the distinction between individual types of agents occurring based on the coagulation factor that is inhibited. Apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban each inhibit factor Xa, whereas the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran inhibits factor IIa (thrombin).

An overview of the pivotal NOAC trials in patients with non-valvular AF are summarized in Table 1. In the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term anticoagulant therapY (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran was compared to warfarin in 18,113 patients with results first published in 2009.6) In 2011, results were published from the pivotal Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in AF (ROCKET-AF) trial of 14,246 patients comparing rivaroxaban to warfarin.7) The Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in AF (ARISTOTLE) trial compared apixaban to warfarin and assessed outcomes in 18,201 patients.8) Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in AF (ENGAGE-AF) compared edoxaban to warfarin in 21,105 patients with results reported in 2013.9)

Table 1. Pivotal randomized trials comparing NOAC's with warfarin for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Trial Study drug No. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc score Outcome
RE-LY6) Dabigatran 18,113 2.2 Lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism with dabigatran but similar rates of major hemorrhage
ROCKET AF7) Rivaroxaban 14,246 3.5 Rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism
There was no difference in the risk of major bleeding; intracranial and fatal bleeding however occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group
ARISTOTLE8) Apixaban 18,201 2.1 Apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, and caused less bleeding and was associated with lower mortality
ENGAGE AF9) Edoxaban 21,105 2.8 Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and was associated with lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes
Open in a new tab

ARISTOTLE = apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation; ENGAGE AF= effective anticoagulation with factor Xa next generation in atrial fibrillation; NOAC = novel oral anticoagulants; RE-LY= Randomized Evaluation of Long-term anticoagulant therapY; ROCKET AF = rivaroxaban once daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and embolism trial in atrial fibrillation.

The introduction and rise of NOAC were in response to numerous limitations and challenges with the pre-existing therapy of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), which requires frequent monitoring and has numerous drug and dietary interactions. NOAC provides a potent and a predictable therapeutic effect with comparatively minimal routine laboratory monitoring required. The class of drugs that comprise NOAC has been alternatively termed direct oral anticoagulants as well as a number of other acronyms including target-specific oral anticoagulants, oral direct inhibitors, non-VKA oral anticoagulants, and specific oral direct anticoagulants. Despite the numerous acronyms proposed, NOAC is the acronym that has been favored in society guideline statements.10),11)

HIGH-BLEEDING RISK

While triple therapy with a NOAC and DAPT offers efficacy in the reduction of ischemic events, this combination comes at the risk of increased bleeding. A number of clinical features contribute to increased bleeding risk. The use of triple therapy on its own increases the risk of bleeding, and the duration of triple therapy should be minimized whenever possible. Prior history of bleeding, age ≥75 years, heart failure, stroke, abnormal kidney or liver function, chronic steroid use, alcohol abuse and malignancy all predispose patients to an increased bleeding risk and should all be considered for individualized tailoring of the optimal treatment regimen. Additionally, gender, body mass and ethnic differences can impact the risk for bleeding on NOAC therapy and may impact the appropriate dose selection.12),13),14)

Multiple risk prediction scores have been introduced to assist in the assessment and stratification of bleeding risk. The hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalised ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HAS-BLED) score is among the most commonly used scores for bleeding risk stratification and is used to assess bleeding risk in patients with AF. A patient with a HAS-BLED score ≥3 is considered to be at high-risk for bleeding.15) The use of the HAS-BLED score specifically for patients on concomitant DAPT however has not been validated. The PREdicting bleeding Complications In patients undergoing Stent implantation and subsEquent (PRECISE)-DAPT score was introduced to assess bleeding risk for patients on DAPT. A longer duration of DAPT is associated with significantly increased bleeding in patients at high PRECISE-DAPT risk (score≥25).16) Data support an ischemic benefit of DAPT only in patients with a PRECISE-DAPT score <25.16) Both bleeding risk prediction models have utility for predicting future significant bleeding events in patients taking an oral anticoagulants (OAC) and undergoing PCI.17)

BLEEDING AFTER STENT IMPLANTATION

The risk of bleeding in patients on DAPT following PCI remains low but can be significant when it occurs. Approximately 4.8% of patients following discharge for PCI required bleeding-related readmission in a large analysis from the HMO Research Network-Stent (HMORN-Stent) Registry.18) In the Assessment of DAPT with Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) study, post-discharge bleeding occurred in 6.2% of patients following PCI.19) Significant bleeding following PCI is associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes including increased mortality.1),18),20) Important racial differences may impact the risk for bleeding with DAPT. In a landmark meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials with patient-level data for 16,518 patients with varying durations of DAPT following PCI, East Asians had a higher probability of bleeding versus ischemia when compared with non-East Asians.14)

PATIENT-RELATED RISK OF ISCHEMIA

Patient-related risk factors may predispose to major adverse cardiac ischemic events following PCI. One of the most critical factors contributing to the necessary minimum duration of DAPT and the risk of future ischemic events includes the clinical presentation that necessitated the PCI. Patients presenting with ST-elevation-myocardial infarction (MI) and acute coronary syndrome typically require DAPT of at least 1 year, whereas PCI for stable angina can often be safely managed with DAPT for at least 6 months.

LESION-RELATED ISCHEMIC RISK

It has been standard practice to include patient-level risk for bleeding in the equation of decision making for optimal pharmacotherapy regimen. However, it is equally important to weigh the risk for ischemic events not just on patient-level risk factors such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease and prior stent thrombosis, but also for lesion specific risk factors including the anatomical location of the stent, number of stents implanted, total stent length, lesion complexity and procedural outcome (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Risk-benefit assessment for individualized approach to pharmacotherapy following PCI.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

While in 1 analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials, reference vessel diameter was the only predictor of target lesion failure, there are several other high-risk lesion-related features which have been associated with worse clinical outcomes.21) Stent underexpansion, edge dissection and residual reference segment disease play a significant role in the occurrence of future ischemic events including stent thrombosis.22) Identification of these risk factors is essential to appropriately tailor the optimal duration of DAPT. These features are best identified by intravascular imaging, highlighting its importance in any patient being considered for early termination of DAPT.23)

STENT SELECTION

There is wide variation in practice patterns for antiplatelet therapy and stent selection for PCI in patients treated with NOAC's. In a survey of 38 European centers in 2015, just 12% preferentially prescribed NOAC in patients with non-valvular AF undergoing PCI.24) Furthermore, in elective PCI for patients with non-valvular AF and high bleeding risk, the majority of respondents favored bare-metal stents (BMS) for stent implantation.

In the Polyzene-F (PzF) SHIELD trial, the novel cobalt-chromium coronary stent with specialized PzF coating (COBRA PzF coronary stent; CeleNova Biosciences, San Antonio, TX, USA) is associated with favorable target vessel failure at 9-months following 1 month of DAPT with no stent thrombosis.25) In the ongoing COBRA REDUCE trial, 996 patients with high bleeding risk are being randomized to commercially approved DES with 3 or 6 months of DAPT or PCI with COBRA PzF and 14 days of DAPT (NCT02594501).

In the SENIOR trial, 1,200 elderly patients age ≥75 years were randomized to bioresorbable polymer DES or BMS. In patients with a similar duration of DAPT, DES reduced the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events suggesting even in patients with a high bleeding risk, there is limited benefit with BMS.26)

The common practice is to use BMS to be used for patients requiring long-term systemic anticoagulation. Currently, it is believed that in patients at high-risk of bleeding, the duration of DAPT necessary with contemporary DES is short enough so that DES may be used as the primary stent almost universally. This is supported by the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Cardiovascular Surgery guidelines on myocardial revascularization which recommend that new-generation DES should “be considered as the default stent type for PCI regardless of clinical presentation, lesion subtype, concomitant therapies, or comorbidities” (class I, level of evidence A).27)

While bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) offer potential future alternatives to the implantation of DES in patients at high-risk for bleeding to minimize necessary post-procedural DAPT, the present data are not sufficient to support routine use of BVS or DCB in favor of DES.

DURATION OF DUAL ANTIPLATELET THERAPY

There is wide variation in the duration of required DAPT based on a number of features that include balancing patient risk of bleeding and ischemic events, lesion-related risk of ischemic events, and stent type. Additionally, significant variation in practice patterns exist worldwide. The duration for DAPT can be as short as 2 weeks following stent implantation, as is the case with stents such as the COBRA PzF, ranging to as long as lifelong DAPT in patients in whom have had vascular brachytherapy. The risk of ischemic events following stent implantation is highest immediately after PCI and in the initial weeks afterward. However, the risk of bleeding related to DAPT remains relatively constant with time. Therefore, minimizing DAPT duration has advantages following the initial post-PCI period. Data supporting shorter duration of DAPT (≤6 months) have been increasing.28) Initial results of the short and optimal duration of DAPT after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-2 (STOPDAPT-2) trial suggests that 1-month of DAPT was noninferior to 12-months of DAPT at preventing major adverse ischemic events and superior to 12-months of DAPT at preventing significant bleeding.29) Notably, in STOPDAPT-2 intravascular imaging was used almost universally in this randomized clinical trial of 3,045 patients.

The GLOBAL LEADERS randomized trial assessed the impact of discontinuation of aspirin after 1-month following PCI, followed by antiplatelet monotherapy with ticagrelor compared with standard DAPT in 15,991 patients. The investigators reported the experimental single antiplatelet therapy arm with ticagrelor alone failed to show superiority for the primary endpoint at 2-year follow-up.30) While failing to demonstrate superiority for its primary endpoint, the GLOBAL LEADERS study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of an early discontinuation of aspirin strategy following PCI, ushering in the way for future studies. This will also be investigated in the Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention (TWILIGHT) trial (NCT02270242) of approximately 9,000 randomized patients comparing the use of ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor and aspirin together. The impact of these various antiplatelet regimens on bleeding and ischemic events at 1-year will be reported. Prolonged DAPT in patients with acute coronary syndrome without excessive risk of bleeding should remain the standard of care however due to the increased risk of MI with 6-month DAPT based on data from the SMART-DATE randomized trial of 2,712 patients in Korea.31)

Numerous ongoing pivotal trials are assessing the role of short DAPT therapy following DES implantation that will inform optimal practice. In the XIENCE 90 study the safety of 3-month DAPT in approximately 2,000 patients at high-risk of bleeding is being evaluated (NCT03218787). The XIENCE 28 global study will evaluate the safety of 1-month DAPT in 960 high bleeding risk patients (NCT03355742). Similarly, the Onyx ONE Clear trial is evaluating 1 month of DAPT treatment following stent implantation in 800 high bleeding risk patients (NCT03647475). There is growing evidence that DAPT is required for increasingly shorter periods with contemporary DES, and numerous clinical trials are assessing the impact of shorter durations of therapy.

ANTIPLATELET AGENT

Aspirin dosing should be low-dose only (≤100 mg daily) for all patients on aspirin therapy following PCI.32) Significant variation exists in platelet reactivity for patients on clopidogrel. Nearly one-third of patients on clopidogrel have high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) predisposing them to increased ischemic events.33),34),35) Due to low clinical event rates in the Gauging Responsiveness with A VerifyNow assay-Impact on Thrombosis And Safety (GRAVITAS) trial, routine platelet function testing fell out of favor.36),37) This however may have increased importance when considering discontinuation of aspirin and using monotherapy with clopidogrel.

In the Evaluation of Platelet Inhibition in Patients Having A VerifyNow Assay (EPIPHANY) trial, patients undergoing PCI on maintenance DAPT had platelet function assessed with VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA, USA) at the time of PCI. Patients not on prior thienopyridine therapy were randomized to clopidogrel or prasugrel and underwent P2Y12 platelet function testing. HTPR with P2Y12 reaction units >230 occurred in 51% of patients on maintenance clopidogrel (n=192), and 37% of patients that were randomized to be loaded with clopidogrel (n=90).38) The EPIPHANY trial highlights the frequency of HTPR in patients treated with PCI, suggesting routine screening in patients who are to be considered for antiplatelet monotherapy with clopidogrel alone. Furthermore, the EPIPHANY trial supports the role of prasugrel in clopidogrel non-responders.38),39)

There are important ethnic variations in response to antiplatelet agents. In Korean patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome, a prospective, observational study of 4,421 patients from the Korea Acute MI Registry-National Institute of Health, found that after propensity score matching, there was significantly higher in-hospital bleeding complications without a reduction in ischemic events with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel.40) Antiplatelet therapy in a Korean population with potent antiplatelet agents may still be safe, however may require dose adjustment. In the PRASugrel compared to clopidogrel For Japanese PatIenTs with ACS undergoing PCI (PRASFIT-ACS) study, reduced dosages of prasugrel was associated with lower ischemic events without increased bleeding complications compared to clopidogrel.41) The ethnic variation observed with antiplatelet agents highlights that a universal recommendation has significant limitations, and optimal treatment regimens should be individualized based on the best available data and patient specific factors.

CLINICAL EVIDENCE

The PIONEER AF-PCI trial and the RE-DUAL trial both compared a NOAC plus single antiplatelet therapy with triple therapy with a VKA plus DAPT. Both pivotal trials reported significantly lower bleeding with the dual antithrombotic regimen compared with triple therapy.42),43),44) In the RE-DUAL trial, dabigatran compared to triple therapy with VKA in 2,725 randomized patients was associated with a significant reduction of bleeding events at both 150 mg and 110 mg twice daily dosing with dabigatran.42),43) Due to a concern for potential increased risk for ischemic events with the lower dabigatran dose (110 mg twice daily),150 mg twice daily dosing with dabigatran is preferred with single antiplatelet therapy. The PIONEER AF-PCI trial randomized 2,124 patients with nonvalvular AF treated with PCI to receive 1 of 3 treatment strategies of antiplatelet therapy and OAC. The investigators reported that the use of either low-dose rivaroxaban plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months or very-low-dose rivaroxaban plus DAPT was associated with lower clinically significant bleeding compared with VKA plus DAPT.44)

The AUGUSTUS trial reported the impact of apixaban with and without aspirin in 4,614 patients with AF and an acute coronary syndrome or PCI. The use of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in the incidence of ischemic events compared with drug regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both.45) Edoxaban is currently being studied as part of a triple therapy regimen in the Edoxaban Treatment Versus Vitamin K Antagonist in Patients With AF Undergoing PCI (ENTRUST-AF) trial (NCT02866175).

ROLE OF INTRAVASCULAR IMAGING WITH PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION

Studies assessing the impact of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) on clinical outcomes following PCI have consistently demonstrated significant benefit and a reduction in events with intravascular imaging.46),47),48),49) Ischemic events following PCI can be minimized with intravascular imaging, potentially reducing the likelihood of negative impact from interruption in DAPT. Intravascular imaging with either IVUS or optical coherence tomography offers potential benefit in this patient population both pre- and post- stent implantation. Pre-PCI intravascular imaging is useful for stent sizing and the determination for need for lesion preparation to ensure maximal stent expansion.50),51) Post-PCI intravascular imaging can exclude complications pre-disposing to ischemic events that may be otherwise not appreciated by angiography alone including significant edge dissection, stent underexpansion, and residual disease.52),53),54),55),56) In patients in whom a short duration of DAPT is being considered, it is increasingly important for procedural optimization with intravascular imaging with final assessment.

GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) focused update on duration of DAPT in patients with coronary artery disease guideline recommendations for patients at high bleeding risk treated with PCI supports clopidogrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice in patients on OAC therapy.57) The duration of DAPT recommended by the ACC/AHA guidelines is based on the indication for PCI. In patients with stable coronary artery disease, discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor at 3-months is recommended, whereas for patients treated for acute coronary syndrome, P2Y12 inhibitors should be continued for at least 6 months.57)

The 2018 ESC guidelines similarly recommend clopidogrel as the P2Y12 inhibitor of choice, with low dose (≤100 mg daily) aspirin, however recommend keeping the duration of triple therapy as short as possible.27) ESC guidelines recommend triple therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel and OAC for 1 month, and up to 6 months in patients at higher ischemic risk due to acute coronary syndrome or procedural characteristics that outweigh bleeding risk (class IIa, level of evidence B).27) When a NOAC is added to either aspirin or clopidogrel, the lowest approved effective dose for stroke prevention tested in AF trials should be considered (class IIa, level of evidence C).27) The ESC cautions that the use of ticagrelor or prasugrel is not recommended as part of triple antithrombotic therapy with aspirin and OAC (class III, level of evidence C).27)

ALGORITHMIC APPROACH

Our recommendation based on current evidenced-based medicine, best practices, clinical experience and available pharmacologic therapies is summarized in Figure 2. Prognosis is worse in those experiencing an adverse event whether it is an ischemic or bleeding event following PCI, so efforts are needed to balance these competing risks.58) Aspirin therapy should be limited to low-dose aspirin, and DES should be used as the default choice of stent. NOAC's offer significant advantages to VKA including less drug and dietary interactions, less routine monitoring of blood work, and greater time in therapeutic range. Potent thienopyridine therapy should be used following stent implantation in the absence of routine P2Y12 testing prior to initiating antiplatelet monotherapy.

Figure 2. Approach to patients requiring PCI on oral anticoagulant therapy.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

DAPT = dual antiplatelet therapy; DES = drug-eluting stent; IVUS = intravascular ultrasound; NOAC = novel oral anticoagulant; OAC = oral anticoagulant; OCT = optical coherence tomography; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONCLUSION

DAPT is associated with reduced ischemic events including stent thrombosis, MI and stroke. The tradeoff however is an increased risk for bleeding on DAPT. The addition of a NOAC further increases the likelihood of bleeding while on antiplatelet therapy. Thus, the overall risks and benefits for each patient undergoing PCI on NOAC's must be assessed and therapy individualized to ensure optimal therapy for each unique clinical situation.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions:
  • Conceptualization: Shlofmitz E, Shlofmitz R, Lee MS.
  • Data curation: Shlofmitz E, Lee MS.
  • Supervision: Lee MS.
  • Writing - original draft: Shlofmitz E, Lee MS.
  • Writing - review & editing: Shlofmitz E, Shlofmitz R, Lee MS.

References

  • 1.Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the task force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213–260. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;131:e29–e322. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Miyasaka Y, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, et al. Secular trends in incidence of atrial fibrillation in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000, and implications on the projections for future prevalence. Circulation. 2006;114:119–125. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.595140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Degheim G, Berry A, Zughaib M. Off label use of direct oral anticoagulants for left ventricular thrombus. Is it appropriate? Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2017;7:98–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Skelley JW, White CW, Thomason AR. The use of direct oral anticoagulants in inherited thrombophilia. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017;43:24–30. doi: 10.1007/s11239-016-1428-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139–1151. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0905561. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883–891. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009638. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–992. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1107039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093–2104. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1310907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149:315–352. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Steffel J, Verhamme P, Potpara TS, et al. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association practical guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1330–1393. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lee JM, Kim TH, Cha MJ, et al. Gender-related differences in management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in an Asian population. Korean Circ J. 2018;48:519–528. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2017.0389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Joung B. Real-world data and recommended dosage of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants for Korean patients. Korean Circ J. 2017;47:833–841. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2017.0158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kang J, Park KW, Palmerini T, et al. Racial differences in ischaemia/bleeding risk trade-off during anti-platelet therapy: individual patient level landmark meta-analysis from seven RCTs. Thromb Haemost. 2019;119:149–162. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1676545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lip GY, Frison L, Halperin JL, Lane DA. Comparative validation of a novel risk score for predicting bleeding risk in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation: the HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile INR, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:173–180. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Costa F, van Klaveren D, James S, et al. Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet. 2017;389:1025–1034. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30397-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yoshida R, Ishii H, Morishima I, et al. Performance of HAS-BLED, ORBIT, PRECISE-DAPT, and PARIS risk score for predicting long-term bleeding events in patients taking an oral anticoagulant undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Cardiol. 2019;73:479–487. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2018.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Valle JA, Shetterly S, Maddox TM, et al. Postdischarge bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent mortality and myocardial infarction: insights from the HMO Research Network-Stent Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003519. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Généreux P, Giustino G, Witzenbichler B, et al. Incidence, predictors, and impact of post-discharge bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:1036–1045. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.06.1323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kazi DS, Leong TK, Chang TI, Solomon MD, Hlatky MA, Go AS. Association of spontaneous bleeding and myocardial infarction with long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1411–1420. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.01.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Konigstein M, Madhavan MV, Ben-Yehuda O, et al. Incidence and predictors of target lesion failure in patients undergoing contemporary DES implantation-individual patient data pooled analysis from 6 randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2019;213:105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rozemeijer R, Wing Wong C, Leenders G, et al. Incidence, angiographic and clinical predictors, and impact of stent thrombosis: a 6-year survey of 6,545 consecutive patients. Neth Heart J. 2019;27:321–329. doi: 10.1007/s12471-019-1253-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shlofmitz E, Shlofmitz RA, Galougahi KK, et al. Algorithmic approach for optical coherence tomography-guided stent implantation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2018;7:329–344. doi: 10.1016/j.iccl.2018.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Larsen TB, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. Preference for oral anticoagulation therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation in Europe in different clinical situations: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey. Europace. 2015;17:819–824. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cutlip DE, Garratt KN, Novack V, et al. 9-month clinical and angiographic outcomes of the COBRA Polyzene-F nanocoated coronary stent system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.10.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Varenne O, Cook S, Sideris G, et al. Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet. 2018;391:41–50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32713-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Jang JY, Shin DH, Kim JS, et al. Optimal duration of DAPT after second-generation drug-eluting stent in acute coronary syndrome. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0207386. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Watanabe H. STOPDAPT-2 trial; American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session (ACC 2019); 2019 Mar 18; Mon, USA. New Orleans (LA): American College of Cardiology; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Jüni P, et al. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet. 2018;392:940–949. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31858-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hahn JY, Song YB, Oh JH, et al. 6-month versus 12-month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART-DATE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1274–1284. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30493-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2019;72:73. doi: 10.1016/j.rec.2018.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Parodi G, Marcucci R, Valenti R, et al. High residual platelet reactivity after clopidogrel loading and long-term cardiovascular events among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI. JAMA. 2011;306:1215–1223. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M, et al. A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2159–2164. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Price MJ, Endemann S, Gollapudi RR, et al. Prognostic significance of post-clopidogrel platelet reactivity assessed by a point-of-care assay on thrombotic events after drug-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:992–1000. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Price MJ, Berger PB, Teirstein PS, et al. Standard- vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;305:1097–1105. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Price MJ, Berger PB, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Evaluation of individualized clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with high residual platelet reactivity: design and rationale of the GRAVITAS trial. Am Heart J. 2009;157:818–824. 824.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.02.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lee MS, Shlofmitz E, Haag E, et al. Optimal same-day platelet inhibition in patients receiving drug-eluting stents with or without previous maintenance thienopyridine therapy: from the Evaluation of Platelet Inhibition in Patients Having A VerifyNow Assay (EPIPHANY) trial. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:991–995. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lee SH, Kim BK, Oh J, et al. Successful prasugrel rescue therapy in clopidogrel resistant patients who had recurrent stent thrombosis of drug-eluting-stent: the role of prasugrel in clopidogrel nonresponders. Korean Circ J. 2013;43:343–346. doi: 10.4070/kcj.2013.43.5.343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Park KH, Jeong MH, Kim HK, et al. Comparison of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in Korean patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing successful revascularization. J Cardiol. 2018;71:36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2017.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Saito S, Isshiki T, Kimura T, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjusted-dose prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in Japanese patients with acute coronary syndrome: the PRASFIT-ACS study. Circ J. 2014;78:1684–1692. doi: 10.1253/circj.cj-13-1482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Oldgren J, Steg PG, Hohnloser SH, et al. 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. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:1553–1562. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cannon CP, Bhatt DL, Oldgren J, et al. Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran after PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1513–1524. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C, et al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2423–2434. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lopes RD, Heizer G, Aronson R, et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1509–1524. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hong SJ, Kim BK, Shin DH, et al. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2155–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.15454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation: the ULTIMATE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3126–3137. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Choi KH, Song YB, Lee JM, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention on long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:607–620. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.01.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Maehara A, Mintz GS, Witzenbichler B, et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e006243. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.006243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Shlofmitz E, Kuku KO, Waksman R, Garcia-Garcia HM. Intravascular ultrasound-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2019 doi: 10.23736/S0026-4725.19.04895-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Shlofmitz E, Hashim H. Avoiding patient-stent mismatch: incorporating optical coherence tomography into routine practice. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20:273–274. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS, et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:995–998. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.12.066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Okabe T, Mintz GS, Buch AN, et al. Intravascular ultrasound parameters associated with stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent deployment. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:615–620. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.03.072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Choi SY, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings of early stent thrombosis after primary percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:239–247. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.110.959791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Liu X, Doi H, Maehara A, et al. A volumetric intravascular ultrasound comparison of early drug-eluting stent thrombosis versus restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:428–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Liu X, Tsujita K, Maehara A, et al. Intravascular ultrasound assessment of the incidence and predictors of edge dissections after drug-eluting stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:997–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1082–1115. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Brener SJ, Kirtane AJ, Stuckey TD, et al. The impact of timing of ischemic and hemorrhagic events on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: the ADAPT-DES study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1450–1457. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.04.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Korean Circulation Journal are provided here courtesy of The Korean Society of Cardiology

RESOURCES