Abstract
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have traditionally received triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) consisting of aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to reduce atherothrombotic events, even though this strategy is associated with a high risk of severe bleeding. Recent trials have indicated that dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT), consisting of a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an OAC, may be superior to TAT in terms of bleeding risk; however, the trade-off regarding ischemic complications may be questionable. Patients who have had a myocardial infarction (MI) before undergoing PCI warrant special consideration because of the accompanying high ischemic risk, including stent thrombosis, which might be exacerbated by an aspirin-free strategy such as DAT. In particular, in the acute phase of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), the highly prothrombotic milieu may necessitate initial TAT, though durations may vary, making a tailored antithrombotic regimen for this high-risk subset of patients a fairly challenging and difficult scenario for clinicians. Since patients with MI, especially STEMI, are underrepresented in randomized trials, data regarding the optimal antithrombotic treatment in such patients are sparse. This review aims to analyze the outcomes of different antithrombotic regimens in patients with MI and AF undergoing PCI, define the role of DAT versus TAT regarding safety and efficacy outcomes, and address controversial issues and future perspectives.
