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.