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 personyears, 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.

In patients undergoing TAVR use of a cerebral embolic protection device demonstrated a significant higher rate of stroke-free survival compared with unprotected TAVR.

In patients undergoing TAVR, AF was associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality throughout 12 months follow-up. The early safety endpoint in patients with AF on apixaban was significantly less frequent compared with patients receiving a VKA.

BACKGROUNDTranscatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR. RESULTSA total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, −0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.

Aims The role of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial. Randomized trials have not been powered to demonstrate a reduction in stroke rates. The aim of this patient level pooled analysis was to validate the impact of the dual-filter CEP device (Claret Medical Inc., CA, USA) on peri-procedural stroke in a large number of TAVR patients. Methods and results Patients from the SENTINEL US IDE trial were combined with the CLEAN-TAVI and SENTINEL-Ulm study in a patient level pooled analysis (N = 1306). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for possible confounders. The primary endpoint was procedural stroke within 72 h post-TAVR according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. The secondary endpoint was the combination of all-cause mortality or all-stroke within 72 h after TAVR. In the propensity-matched population, 533 patients underwent TAVR without CEP and 533 patients underwent TAVR with CEP. TAVR patients without vs. with CEP were similar with respect to baseline characteristics, procedural approach, or valve type. In patients undergoing TAVR with dual-filter CEP, procedural all-stroke was significantly lower compared with unprotected procedures [1.88% vs. 5.44%, odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17–0.72, relative risk reduction 65%, P = 0.0028]. In addition, all-cause mortality and all-stroke were significantly lower (2.06% vs. 6.00%, odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.17–0.68, relative risk reduction 66%, P = 0.0013). Conclusion Our findings suggest that TAVR with the dual-filter CEP device is associated with a significant lower rate of peri-procedural stroke compared with unprotected procedures. However, randomized trials are still needed to clarify this issue.