Search

Background Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. Methods We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. Results After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P=0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P=0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). Conclusions In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.) Supported by Bayer in collaboration with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Dangas reports iving lecture lees from Bayer, receiving grant support, paid to his institution, and lecture fees from Daiichi Sankyo, and previously holding equity in Medtronic; Dr. Mollmann, receiving lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer; Dr. Makkar, receiving grant support, consulting fees, and travel support from Abbott Vascular, grant support, lecture fees, and travel support from Edwards Lifesciences, and grant support and consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; Dr. FIerrmann, receiving grant support, paid to his institution, from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific and grant support, paid to his institution, and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; Dr. Giusrino, receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer; Dr. De Backer, receiving lecture fees from Boston Scientific; Dr. Guimaraes, being employed by Cardialysis; Dr. Mack, serving as a trial coprimary investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a study chair for Medtronic; Dr. Schafer, receiving grant support from the Medicines Company; Dr. Thomitzek, being employed by and holding stock in Bayer; Dr. Valgimigli, receiving lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Als'imedical CID, Vifor Pharma, and Medscape, grant support and lecture fees from 'Ceram, consulting fees and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Opsens, CoreFIDW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, and iVascular; Dr. Vranekx, receiving fees for serving on a speakers bureau from Daiichi Sankyo, lecture tees from AstraZeneca, and fees for serving on a steering committee and travel support from CSL Behring; Dr. Welsh, receiving grant support and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; Dr. Wildgoose, being employed by and holding stock in Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Volkl, being employed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals; Dr. van Amsterdam, being employed by Cardialysis; Dr. Zazula, being employed by Bayer; Dr. Mehran, receiving advisory board fees and consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis and Janssen, receiving lecture fees from Bayer, receiving grant support, paid to her institution, and lecture fees from Daiichi Sankyo, and previously holding equity in Medtronic; and Dr. Windecker, receiving grant support, paid to his institution, advisory board fees, and travel support from Amgen and grant support, paid ro his institution, from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Boston Scientific, Bic rronik, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Polares Medical, and Sinomed. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported. Windecker, S (reprint author), Windecker, S (reprint author) stephan.windecker@insel.ch

BACKGROUND Subclinical leaflet thickening and reduced leaflet motion of bioprosthetic aortic valves have been documented by four-dimensional computed tomography (CT). Whether anticoagulation can reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known. METHODS In a substudy of a large randomized trial, we randomly assigned patients who had undergone successful TAVR and who did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation to a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy (rivaroxaban [10 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily) or an antiplatelet-based strategy (clopidogrel [75 mg] plus aspirin [75 to 100 mg] once daily). Patients underwent evaluation by four-dimensional CT at a mean (±SD) of 90±15 days after randomization. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction (i.e., involving >50% of the leaflet). Leaflet thickening was also assessed. RESULTS A total of 231 patients were enrolled. At least one prosthetic valve leaflet with grade 3 or higher motion reduction was found in 2 of 97 patients (2.1%) who had scans that could be evaluated in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 11 of 101 (10.9%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -8.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -16.5 to -1.9; P=0.01). Thickening of at least one leaflet was observed in 12 of 97 patients (12.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 102 (32.4%) in the antiplatelet group (difference, -20.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -30.9 to -8.5). In the main trial, the risk of death or thromboembolic events and the risk of life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding were higher with rivaroxaban (hazard ratios of 1.35 and 1.50, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In a substudy of a trial involving patients without an indication for long-term anticoagulation who had undergone successful TAVR, a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy was more effective than an antiplatelet-based strategy in preventing subclinical leaflet-motion abnormalities. However, in the main trial, the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than the antiplatelet-based strategy. Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.

BACKGROUND Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P=0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P=0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has evolved into a global pandemic. Low-dose colchicine combines anti-inflammatory action with a favorable safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with colchicine on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial (the Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention), 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized in a 1:1 allocation from April 3 to April 27, 2020, to either standard medical treatment or colchicine with standard medical treatment. The study took place in 16 tertiary hospitals in Greece. Intervention: Colchicine administration (1.5-mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg after 60 min and maintenance doses of 0.5 mg twice daily) with standard medical treatment for as long as 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were (1) maximum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level; (2) time for C-reactive protein to reach more than 3 times the upper reference limit; and (3) time to deterioration by 2 points on a 7-grade clinical status scale, ranging from able to resume normal activities to death. Secondary end points were (1) the percentage of participants requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) number, type, severity, and seriousness of adverse events. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated (61 [58.1%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [54-76] years) with 50 (47.6%) randomized to the control group and 55 (52.4%) to the colchicine group. Median (interquartile range) peak high-sensitivity cardiac troponin values were 0.0112 (0.0043-0.0093) ng/mL in the control group and 0.008 (0.004-0.0135) ng/mL in the colchicine group (P =.34). Median (interquartile range) maximum C-reactive protein levels were 4.5 (1.4-8.9) mg/dL vs 3.1 (0.8-9.8) mg/dL (P =.73), respectively. The clinical primary end point rate was 14.0% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P =.02). Mean (SD) event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days the in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P =.03). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, except for diarrhea, which was more frequent with colchicine group than the control group (25 patients [45.5%] vs 9 patients [18.0%]; P =.003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration. There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04326790. © 2020 Copernicus GmbH. All rights reserved.

Background: Whether the underlying risk of bleeding influences the associations between patterns of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation and adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. Methods: Patients enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter PARIS registry (Patterns of Non-Adherence to Anti-Platelet Regimens in Stented Patients) were categorized according to their risk of bleeding using the PARIS bleeding risk score. We evaluated the incidence, patterns, and association between modes of DAPT cessation and outcomes across bleeding risk groups. Modes of DAPT cessations were defined as physician-guided DAPT discontinuation, brief interruption (

Objectives: This study aimed to compare differences in patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus patients younger than 90 years of age and to test the predictive accuracy of the logistic EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation), the EuroSCORE II, and the STS-PROM (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality) for mortality after TAVR in nonagenarians. Background: The prevalence of severe aortic valve stenosis is increasing due to the rising life expectancy. However, there are limited data evaluating outcomes in patients older than 90 years of age. Moreover, the predictive accuracy of risk scores for mortality has not been evaluated in nonagenarian patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. Methods: The CENTER (Cerebrovascular EveNts in Patients Undergoing TranscathetER Aortic Valve Implantation) collaboration (N = 12,381) is an international collaboration consisting of 3 national registries, 6 local or multicenter registries, and 1 prospective clinical study, selected through a systematic online search. The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in 30-day all-cause mortality and stroke after TAVR in nonagenarians versus patients younger than 90 years of age. Secondary endpoints included differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and the differences in predictive accuracy of the logistic EuroSCORE, the EuroSCORE II, and STS-PROM. Results: A total of 882 nonagenarians and 11,499 patients younger than 90 years of age undergoing transfemoral TAVR between 2007 and 2018 were included. Nonagenarians had considerably fewer comorbidities than their counterparts. Nevertheless, rates of 30-day mortality (9.9% vs. 5.4%; relative risk [RR]: 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 2.3; p = 0.001), in-hospital stroke (3.0% vs. 1.9%; RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0 to 2.3; p = 0.04), major or life-threatening bleeding (8.1% vs. 5.5%; RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.2; p = 0.004), and new-onset atrial fibrillation (7.9% vs. 5.2%; RR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.2; p = 0.01) were higher in nonagenarians. The STS-PROM adequately estimated mortality in nonagenarians, with an observed-expected mortality ratio of 1.0. Conclusions: In this large, global, patient-level analysis, mortality after transfemoral TAVR was 2-fold higher in nonagenarians compared with patients younger than 90 years of age, despite the lower prevalence of baseline comorbidities. Moreover, nonagenarians had a higher risk of in-hospital stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. The STS-PROM was the only surgical risk score that accurately predicted the risk of mortality in nonagenarians.

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the standard treatment for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The availability of different P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) with varying levels of potency has enabled physicians to contemplate individualized treatment regimens, which may include escalation or de-escalation of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy. Indeed, individualized and alternative DAPT strategies may be chosen according to the clinical setting (stable coronary artery disease vs. acute coronary syndrome), the stage of the disease (early- vs. long-term treatment), and patient risk for ischemic and bleeding complications. A tailored DAPT approach may be potentially guided by platelet function testing (PFT) or genetic testing. Although the routine use of PFT or genetic testing in percutaneous coronary intervention–treated patients is not recommended, recent data have led to an update in guideline recommendations that allow considering selective use of PFT for DAPT de-escalation. However, guidelines do not expand on when to implement the selective use of such assays into decision making for personalized treatment approaches. Therefore, an international expert consensus group of key leaders from North America, Asia, and Europe with expertise in the field of antiplatelet treatment was convened. This document updates 2 prior consensus papers on this topic and summarizes the contemporary updated expert consensus recommendations for the selective use of PFT or genotyping in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate anatomical complexity according to baseline renal function from the multicenter randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate 2 using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Acute renal failure (ARF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase ≥5.0 mg/dl from baseline or a new requirement for dialysis. The primary composite endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3-year follow-up. CKD was present in 361 of 1,869 randomized patients (19.3%) in whom baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was available. Patients with CKD had higher 3-year rates of the primary endpoint compared with those without CKD (20.8% vs. 13.5%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.09; p = 0.0005). ARF within 30 days occurred more commonly in patients with compared with those without CKD (5.0% vs. 0.8%; p interaction = 0.71). There were no significant differences in the rates of the primary composite endpoint after PCI and CABG in patients with CKD (23.4% vs. 18.1%; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.98) and without CKD (13.4% vs. 13.5%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.27; pinteraction = 0.38). Patients with CKD undergoing revascularization for LMCAD in the EXCEL trial had increased rates of ARF and reduced event-free survival. ARF occurred less frequently after PCI compared with CABG. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in terms of death, stroke, or MI at 3 years in patients with and without CKD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).