No abstract

BACKGROUND The roles of anticoagulation alone or with an antiplatelet agent after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) have not been well studied. METHODS We performed a randomized trial of clopidogrel in patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation for appropriate indications. Patients were assigned before TAVI in a 1:1 ratio not to receive clopidogrel or to receive clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding and non-procedurerelated bleeding over a period of 12 months. Procedure-related bleeding was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 4 severe bleeding, and therefore most bleeding at the puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 12 months (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2), both tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS Bleeding occurred in 34 of the 157 patients (21.7%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 54 of the 156 (34.6%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.90; P = 0.01); most bleeding events were at the TAVI access site. Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 34 patients (21.7%) and in 53 (34.0%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.92; P = 0.02). Most bleeding occurred in the first month and was minor. A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 49 patients (31.2%) receiving oral anticoagulation alone and in 71 (45.5%) receiving oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel (difference, −14.3 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −25.0 to −3.6; risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI for superiority, 0.51 to 0.92). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 21 patients (13.4%) and in 27 (17.3%), respectively (difference, −3.9 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −11.9 to 4.0; risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI for superiority, 0.46 to 1.31). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing TAVI who were receiving oral anticoagulation, the incidence of serious bleeding over a period of 1 month or 1 year was lower with oral anticoagulation alone than with oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular TAVI EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2013-003125-28; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02247128.

No abstract

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the available data on antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In the absence of large randomised clinical trials, clinical practice is leaning towards evidence reported in other populations. Due to the greater risk of major bleeding associated with oral anticoagulation using a vitamin-K antagonist (VKA), antiplatelet therapy (APT) may be considered as the first-line treatment of patients undergoing TAVI. Overall, single rather than dual APT is preferred. However, dual APT should be considered in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome (ie, within 6 months), complex coronary stenting, large aortic arch atheromas or previous non-cardioembolic stroke. Monotherapy with VKA should be considered if concomitant atrial fibrillation or any other indication for long-term oral anticoagulation is present. APT on top of VKA seems only reasonable in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, extensive or recent coronary stenting or large aortic arch atheromas. A direct-acting oral anticoagulant may be considered if oral anticoagulation is indicated in the absence of contraindications. Initiation of VKA is indicated in clinical valve thrombosis, for example, with high transvalvular gradient, whereas the role of VKA in the case of subclinical leaflet thrombosis is currently uncertain.

The aim of this study was to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Acurate neo (NEO) and Evolut PRO (PRO) devices. BACKGROUND The NEO and PRO bioprostheses are 2 next-generation self-expanding devices developed for TAVR. METHODS The NEOPRO (A Multicenter Comparison of Acurate NEO Versus Evolut PRO Transcatheter Heart Valves) registry retrospectively included patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR with either NEO or PRO valves at 24 centers between January 2012 and March 2018. One-to-one propensity score matching resulted in 251 pairs. Pre-discharge and 30-day Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-2 defined outcomes were evaluated. Binary logistic regression was performed to adjust the treatment effect for propensity score quintiles. RESULTS A total of 1,551 patients (n = 1,263 NEO; n = 288 PRO) were included. The mean age was 82 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 5.1%. After propensity score matching (n = 502), VARC-2 device success (90.6% vs. 91.6%; p = 0.751) and predischarge moderate to severe (II+) paravalvular aortic regurgitation (7.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.584) were comparable between the NEO and PRO groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any 30-day clinical outcome between matched NEO and PRO pairs, including all-cause mortality (3.2% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.221), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.8%; p = 1.000), new permanent pacemaker implantation (11.0% vs. 12.8%; p = 0.565), and VARC-2 early safety endpoint (10.6% vs. 10.4%; p = 1.000). Logistic regression on the unmatched cohort confirmed a similar risk of VARC-2 device success, paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and 30-day clinical outcomes after NEO and PRO implantation. CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter registry, transfemoral TAVR with the NEO and PRO bioprostheses was associated with high device success, acceptable rates of paravalvular aortic regurgitation II+, and good 30-day clinical outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, short-term outcomes were similar between the devices.