慢性冠心病患者口服抗凝单药治疗:最新荟萃分析

IF 5.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mushood Ahmed, Jamal S Rana, Raheel Ahmed, Gregg C Fonarow
{"title":"慢性冠心病患者口服抗凝单药治疗:最新荟萃分析","authors":"Mushood Ahmed, Jamal S Rana, Raheel Ahmed, Gregg C Fonarow","doi":"10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.09.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation remains uncertain. While dual therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet agents is common, it significantly increases bleeding risk. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of OAC monotherapy against combination therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library through August 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OAC monotherapy to dual therapy (OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent) in patients with chronic coronary disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs with 4964 participants were included. OAC monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and systemic embolism were comparable between the two groups. OAC monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77) and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation, OAC monotherapy reduces bleeding complications without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to dual therapy. These findings support the use of a simplified antithrombotic strategy without antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":50807,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oral anticoagulant monotherapy in patients with chronic coronary disease: An updated meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mushood Ahmed, Jamal S Rana, Raheel Ahmed, Gregg C Fonarow\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.09.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation remains uncertain. While dual therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet agents is common, it significantly increases bleeding risk. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of OAC monotherapy against combination therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library through August 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OAC monotherapy to dual therapy (OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent) in patients with chronic coronary disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs with 4964 participants were included. OAC monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and systemic embolism were comparable between the two groups. OAC monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77) and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation, OAC monotherapy reduces bleeding complications without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to dual therapy. These findings support the use of a simplified antithrombotic strategy without antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.09.019\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.09.019","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:需要长期抗凝治疗的慢性冠心病患者的最佳抗血栓策略仍不确定。虽然口服抗凝剂(OACs)和抗血小板药物的双重治疗是常见的,但它会显著增加出血风险。本荟萃分析旨在比较OAC单药治疗与联合治疗的疗效和安全性。方法:我们检索PubMed、Embase、ClinicalTrials.gov和Cochrane图书馆,检索截至2025年8月的随机对照试验(rct),比较OAC单药治疗和双重治疗(OAC加单一抗血小板药物)对慢性冠心病患者的影响。主要结局是心血管死亡、中风、心肌梗死和大出血的复合结局。结果:纳入5项随机对照试验,共4964名受试者。OAC单药治疗与主要综合结局的风险显著降低相关(RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85)。两组的全因死亡、心血管死亡、心肌梗死、中风和全身性栓塞的风险具有可比性。OAC单药治疗显著降低大出血(RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77)和大出血或临床相关的非大出血(RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68)的风险。结论:在需要长期抗凝治疗的慢性冠心病患者中,与双重治疗相比,OAC单药治疗可减少出血并发症,而不会增加缺血性事件的风险。这些发现支持在该患者群体中使用简化的抗血栓策略而不使用抗血小板治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oral anticoagulant monotherapy in patients with chronic coronary disease: An updated meta-analysis.

Background: The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation remains uncertain. While dual therapy with oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet agents is common, it significantly increases bleeding risk. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of OAC monotherapy against combination therapy.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library through August 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OAC monotherapy to dual therapy (OAC plus a single antiplatelet agent) in patients with chronic coronary disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding.

Results: Five RCTs with 4964 participants were included. OAC monotherapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). The risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and systemic embolism were comparable between the two groups. OAC monotherapy significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77) and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68).

Conclusions: In patients with chronic coronary disease requiring long-term anticoagulation, OAC monotherapy reduces bleeding complications without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to dual therapy. These findings support the use of a simplified antithrombotic strategy without antiplatelet therapy in this patient population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.40%
发文量
449
审稿时长
9 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Medicine - "The Green Journal" - publishes original clinical research of interest to physicians in internal medicine, both in academia and community-based practice. AJM is the official journal of the Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, a prestigious group comprising internal medicine department chairs at more than 125 medical schools across the U.S. Each issue carries useful reviews as well as seminal articles of immediate interest to the practicing physician, including peer-reviewed, original scientific studies that have direct clinical significance and position papers on health care issues, medical education, and public policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信