Efficacy and safety outcomes of long-term anti-thrombotic treatment of chronic coronary artery disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
anticoagulation
chronic coronary syndrome (CCS)
dual-anti platelet
long anti-thrombotic strategies
network meta-analysis (NMA)
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
accepted:
19
12
2022
entrez:
26
1
2023
pubmed:
27
1
2023
medline:
27
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and low-dose rivaroxaban are all optional strategies in conjunction with aspirin for long-term treatment of chronic coronary artery disease. The aim of this research was to assess the efficacy and safety of long-term anti-thrombotic treatment of chronic coronary heart disease. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Clinical Trials Registry ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Cochrane Library were searched through November 2021, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared long term anti-thrombotic therapy for coronary heart disease. Data were extracted to assess eligibility by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results. Eleven randomized controlled trials were included (88,462 patients). In a network meta-analysis, the rivaroxaban compared to the clopidogrel regimen showed lower relative risks (RRs) for death of any cause (0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.96), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), and cerebrovascular events (0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78). The RR of cerebrovascular events was also lower for the rivaroxaban compared to the ticagrelor 60 mg regimen (0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99). For the prasugrel regimen, the RRs were lower of myocardial infarction incidence versus all extended strategies: clopidogrel plus aspirin (0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99), rivaroxaban (0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93), ticagrelor 60 mg (0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89), and ticagrelor 90 mg (0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97). None of the dual strategies were associated with differences in major bleeding compared to the prasugrel regimen. The rivaroxaban regimen appeared to be the preferred long-term anti-thrombotic regimen in preventing all-cause mortality. Our available results tend to support the efficacy of extended anti-thrombotic therapy consisting of prasugrel in lowering MI incidence compared to the other strategies, without increased risk of bleeding. However, additional large-scale direct clinical trials are needed to further determine the adequate long-term anti-thrombotic regimens for treating chronic coronary syndrome. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186583, identifier CRD42020186583.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and low-dose rivaroxaban are all optional strategies in conjunction with aspirin for long-term treatment of chronic coronary artery disease. The aim of this research was to assess the efficacy and safety of long-term anti-thrombotic treatment of chronic coronary heart disease.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Clinical Trials Registry ClinicalTrials.gov, and The Cochrane Library were searched through November 2021, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared long term anti-thrombotic therapy for coronary heart disease. Data were extracted to assess eligibility by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Eleven randomized controlled trials were included (88,462 patients). In a network meta-analysis, the rivaroxaban compared to the clopidogrel regimen showed lower relative risks (RRs) for death of any cause (0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.96), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), and cerebrovascular events (0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78). The RR of cerebrovascular events was also lower for the rivaroxaban compared to the ticagrelor 60 mg regimen (0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-0.99). For the prasugrel regimen, the RRs were lower of myocardial infarction incidence versus all extended strategies: clopidogrel plus aspirin (0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99), rivaroxaban (0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.93), ticagrelor 60 mg (0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89), and ticagrelor 90 mg (0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97). None of the dual strategies were associated with differences in major bleeding compared to the prasugrel regimen.
Conclusions and relevance
UNASSIGNED
The rivaroxaban regimen appeared to be the preferred long-term anti-thrombotic regimen in preventing all-cause mortality. Our available results tend to support the efficacy of extended anti-thrombotic therapy consisting of prasugrel in lowering MI incidence compared to the other strategies, without increased risk of bleeding. However, additional large-scale direct clinical trials are needed to further determine the adequate long-term anti-thrombotic regimens for treating chronic coronary syndrome.
Systematic review registration
UNASSIGNED
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020186583, identifier CRD42020186583.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36698921
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1016390
pmc: PMC9868614
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1016390Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Adawi, Rotshild, Yanko, Mowaswes, Amir, Haitner, Matok and Raccah.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Circulation. 2007 May 1;115(17):2344-51
pubmed: 17470709
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jan 1;53(1):34-78
pubmed: 29045581
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Mar;12(3):e007541
pubmed: 30871353
Eur Heart J. 2020 Jan 14;41(3):407-477
pubmed: 31504439
N Engl J Med. 2014 Dec 4;371(23):2155-66
pubmed: 25399658
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 21;37(4):365-74
pubmed: 26364288
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372(19):1791-800
pubmed: 25773268
Circulation. 2010 Feb 2;121(4):569-83
pubmed: 20124137
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Sep 7;10(17):e020446
pubmed: 34423649
Cardiovasc Res. 2014 Mar 1;101(3):344-51
pubmed: 24385341
Eur Heart J. 2021 Sep 7;42(34):3227-3337
pubmed: 34458905
Circulation. 2014 Jan 21;129(3):304-12
pubmed: 24097439
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 17;381(16):1524-1534
pubmed: 31475799
N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 3;381(14):1309-1320
pubmed: 31475798
N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 28;359(9):938-49
pubmed: 18753650
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(22):e3663
pubmed: 27258494
BMJ. 2015 Sep 16;351:h4718
pubmed: 26377337
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Nov 24;76(21):2569-2571
pubmed: 33213734
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep 6;68(10):1116-39
pubmed: 27036919
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Mar 16;10(6):e019184
pubmed: 33682435
Eur Heart J. 2017 Apr 7;38(14):1034-1043
pubmed: 28110296
JAMA Cardiol. 2021 Oct 1;6(10):1121-1129
pubmed: 34190967
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 15;362(15):1374-82
pubmed: 20231231
N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1297-309
pubmed: 22920930
Circulation. 2012 Apr 24;125(16):2015-26
pubmed: 22438530
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
Circulation. 2020 Apr 7;141(14):1141-1151
pubmed: 32178526
Eur Heart J. 2021 Apr 7;42(14):1289-1367
pubmed: 32860058
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366(1):9-19
pubmed: 22077192
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Lancet. 2018 Jan 20;391(10117):205-218
pubmed: 29132879
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1274-1284
pubmed: 29544699
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Jul 31;15:58
pubmed: 26227148
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377(14):1319-1330
pubmed: 28844192