SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF DUAL VS TRIPLE ANTITHROMBOTIC THERAPY IN ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

Background Stroke alongside systemic embolism together with mortality is one of the major complications that is more experienced among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Risk minimization through antithrombotic therapy requires decision-making between dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) and triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) because these options highlight the need to assess the balance between stroke prevention and bleeding outcomes. Objectives The study evaluates the success rate and protective measures of DAT alongside TAT in AF patients by studying: preventing stroke, bleeding repercussions and general clinical results. Methodology The search included recent studies up to five years old which consisted of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies. The investigators used their criteria of relevance, methodological rigor, and data accessibility to select twenty-two studies. Results Scientific analysis represented that DAT has been proved to be more effective than TAT in preventing strokes. DAT lowers the risk of major and minor bleeding complications at a greater extent than TAT. Cesarean sections delivered with either DAT or TAT resulted in equivalent patient survival risks as well as similar cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusion Dual antithrombotic therapy emerges as safer alternative than triple therapy specifically for AF patients because it not only reduces bleeding complications but also hinders thromboembolic events. Each antithrombotic decision for patients should incorporate patient-specific factors as the main consideration.