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

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.

Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. : In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20-80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. : Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure -7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·0 to -2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure -4·3 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure -6·6 mm Hg, -12·4 to -0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure -4·2 mm Hg, -7·7 to -0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference -6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI -12·5 to -1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference -7·4 mm Hg, -12·5 to -2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference -3·5 mm Hg, -7·0 to -0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference -4·1 mm Hg, -7·8 to -0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. : Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. : Medtronic.

Background: Previous catheter-based renal denervation studies have reported variable efficacy results. We aimed to evaluate safety and blood pressure response after renal denervation or sham control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on antihypertensive medications with drug adherence testing. Methods: In this international, randomised, single-blind, sham-control, proof-of-concept trial, patients with uncontrolled hypertension (aged 20–80 years) were enrolled at 25 centres in the USA, Germany, Japan, UK, Australia, Austria, and Greece. Eligible patients had an office systolic blood pressure of between 150 mm Hg and 180 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher; a 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure of between 140 mm Hg and 170 mm Hg at second screening; and were on one to three antihypertensive drugs with stable doses for at least 6 weeks. Patients underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to undergo renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were masked to randomisation assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was blood pressure change from baseline (measured at screening visit two), based on ambulatory blood pressure measurements assessed at 6 months, as compared between treatment groups. Drug surveillance was used to assess medication adherence. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed through 6 months as per major adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439775, and follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between July 22, 2015, and June 14, 2017, 467 patients were screened and enrolled. This analysis presents results for the first 80 patients randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) and sham control (n=42). Office and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 6 months in the renal denervation group (mean baseline-adjusted treatment differences in 24 h systolic blood pressure −7·0 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·0 to −2·1; p=0·0059, 24 h diastolic blood pressure −4·3 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·8; p=0.0174, office systolic blood pressure −6·6 mm Hg, −12·4 to −0·9; p=0·0250, and office diastolic blood pressure −4·2 mm Hg, −7·7 to −0·7; p=0·0190). The change in blood pressure was significantly greater at 6 months in the renal denervation group than the sham-control group for office systolic blood pressure (difference −6·8 mm Hg, 95% CI −12·5 to −1·1; p=0·0205), 24 h systolic blood pressure (difference −7·4 mm Hg, −12·5 to −2·3; p=0·0051), office diastolic blood pressure (difference −3·5 mm Hg, −7·0 to −0·0; p=0·0478), and 24 h diastolic blood pressure (difference −4·1 mm Hg, −7·8 to −0·4; p=0·0292). Evaluation of hourly changes in 24 h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure showed blood pressure reduction throughout 24 h for the renal denervation group. 3 month blood pressure reductions were not significantly different between groups. Medication adherence was about 60% and varied for individual patients throughout the study. No major adverse events were recorded in either group. Interpretation: Renal denervation in the main renal arteries and branches significantly reduced blood pressure compared with sham control with no major safety events. Incomplete medication adherence was common. Funding: Medtronic. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP -5·5 mm Hg (95% CI -9·1 to -2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP -4·8 mm Hg (-7·0 to -2·6; p

Background Previous randomised renal denervation studies did not show consistent efficacy in reducing blood pressure. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effect of renal denervation on blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. Methods SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED was a multicentre, international, single-blind, randomised, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Patients were enrolled at 21 centres in the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia. Eligible patients were drug-naive or discontinued their antihypertensive medications. Patients with an office systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150 mm Hg or greater and less than 180 mm Hg, office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90 mm Hg or greater, and a mean 24-h ambulatory SBP of 140 mm Hg or greater and less than 170 mm Hg at second screening underwent renal angiography and were randomly assigned to renal denervation or sham control. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments. The primary endpoint, change in 24-h blood pressure at 3 months, was compared between groups. Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medication. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were assessed at 3 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02439749. Findings Between June 25, 2015, and Jan 30, 2017, 353 patients were screened. 80 patients were randomly assigned to renal denervation (n=38) or sham control (n=42) and followed up for 3 months. Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure decreased significantly from baseline to 3 months in the renal denervation group: 24-h SBP −5·5 mm Hg (95% CI −9·1 to −2·0; p=0·0031), 24-h DBP −4·8 mm Hg (−7·0 to −2·6; p