Triple Antithrombotic Therapy versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Alone Following Anterior STEMI, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With GRADE Assessment.

Authors

Muhammad Ahsan, Ammad Uddin, Muhammad Ibrahim Siddique, Abbeha Talib, Muhammad Ahmed, Muhammad Tahir, Abdur Rafay Bilal, Faisal Islam, Tawab Aziz Samandari, Shaheer Bin Shafiq

Published in

Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. Volume 32. Pages 10760296261486151. Epub Sep 04, 2026.

Abstract

BackgroundLeft ventricular thrombus (LVT) remains an important complication following anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), despite widespread adoption of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCl). Current guidelines supporting prophylactic oral anticoagulation in high-risk patients are based on limited evidence, and the balance between thromboembolic prevention and bleeding risk remains uncertain. PubMed, Embase and etc were searched for studies comparing triple antithrombotic therapy (TAPT; anticoagulation plus DAPT) versus DAPT alone in patients with anterior STEMI undergoing pPCI. Random-effects model was used to pool risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Outcomes included mortality, bleeding, LVT, and etc.Main Text7 studies including 3,692 participants were included. TAPT was associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding compared with DAPT alone (RR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.60-2.76; P<0.0001; I²=0%). No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.54-2.04; P=0.89; I²=39%), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.94-2.45; P=0.09; I²=0%), stroke (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.20-3.73; P=0.84; I²=55%), LVT formation (RR: 0.54; 95% Cl: 0.21-1.40; P=0.21; l²=61%), NACE (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.49-1.75; P=0.82; I²=77%), or embolic events (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.33; P=0.18; I²=0%).ConclusionsTAPT significantly increased bleeding risk compared with DAPT. No significant reductions were observed in ischemic outcomes; however, wide confidence intervals indicate limited precision and do not exclude a clinically meaningful benefit or harm. Current evidence therefore does not support routine prophylactic TAPT, and adequately powered contemporary randomised trials are needed.

PMID:
42696371
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 05 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.