AIMS :To compare the safety and efficacy of edoxaban combined with P2Y12 inhibition following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

METHODS AND RESULTS :In this pre-specified sub-analysis of the ENTRUST-AF PCI trial, participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to edoxaban- or vitamin K antagonist (VKA)-based strategy and randomization was stratified by ACS (edoxaban n = 388, VKA n = 389) vs. CCS (edoxaban n = 363, VKA = 366). Participants received edoxaban 60 mg once-daily plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months, or VKA combined with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin 100 mg (for 1-12 months). The primary bleeding endpoint at 12 months occurred in 59 (15.2%) vs. 79 (20.3%) ACS patients [hazard ratio (HR): 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-1.02, P = 0.063], and in 69 (19.0%) vs. 73 (19.9%) CCS patients (HR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.68-1.31, P = 0.708) with edoxaban- and VKA-based therapy, respectively [P for interaction (P-int) = 0.2741]. The main secondary endpoint (composite of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolic events, or definite stent thrombosis) in ACS patients was 33 (8.5%) vs. 28 (7.2%) (HR: 1.16, 95%CI: 0.70-1.92), compared with 16 (4.4%) vs. 18 (4.9%) (HR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.47-1.78) CCS patients with edoxaban and VKA-based therapy, respectively (P-int = 0.5573).

CONCLUSIONS :In patients with AF who underwent PCI, the edoxaban-based regimen, as compared with VKA-based regimen, provides consistent safety and similar efficacy for ischaemic events in patients with AF regardless of their clinical presentation.

译文

AIMS :比较经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)并发急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)或慢性冠脉综合征(ED)的患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后依多沙班联合P2Y12抑制的安全性和有效性( CCS)。

方法和结果:在ENTRUST-AF PCI试验的预先指定的亚分析中,参与者被以1:1的比例随机分配给edoxaban-或维生素K拮抗剂基于(VKA)的策略和随机化由ACS(edoxaban n == 388,VKA n == 389)与CCS(edoxaban n == 363,VKA = 366)进行分层。参加者每天一次接受edoxaban60μmg加P2Y12抑制剂治疗12个月,或VKA联合P2Y12抑制剂和阿司匹林100μmg(1-12个月)。 59例(15.2%)vs 79例(20.3%)ACS患者在12个月时的主要出血终点发生率为[危险比(HR):0.73,95%置信区间(CI):0.59-1.02,P = 0.063],以及分别接受依多沙班和VKA治疗的69例(19.0%)vs 73例(19.9%)CCS患者(HR:0.94,95%CI:0.68-1.31,P = 0.708)[P相互作用(P-int )= 0.2741]。 ACS患者的主要次要终点(心血管死亡,心肌梗塞,中风,全身性栓塞事件或明确的支架血栓形成的复合指标)分别为33(8.5%)和28(7.2%)(HR:1.16、95%CI:0.70 -1.92),相比之下,分别接受edoxaban和VKA疗法治疗的CCS患者分别为16(4.4%)和18(4.9%)(HR:0.91,95%CI:0.47-1.78)(P-int = 0.5573)。

结论:在接受PCI的房颤患者中,与基于VKA的方案相比,以依多沙班为基础的方案为房颤患者提供了一致的安全性和相似的疗效不论其临床表现如何。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录