Among patients with pulmonary embolism, including those who were hemodynamically stable with right ventricular dysfunction, thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality and increased risks of major bleeding and ICH. However, findings may not apply to patients with pulmonary embolism who are hemodynamically stable without right ventricular dysfunction.

In participants of clinical trials aged 75 and older, NOACs did not cause excess bleeding and were associated with equal or greater efficacy than conventional therapy.

IMPORTANCEThe COVID-19 pandemic saw one of the fastest developments of vaccines in an effort to combat an out-of-control pandemic. The 2 most common COVID-19 vaccine platforms currently in use, messenger RNA (mRNA) and adenovirus vector, were developed on the basis of previous research in use of this technology. Postauthorization surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines has identified safety signals, including unusual cases of thrombocytopenia with thrombosis reported in recipients of adenoviral vector vaccines. One of the devastating manifestations of this syndrome, termed vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), is cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). This review summarizes the current evidence and indications regarding biology, clinical characteristics, and pharmacological management of VITT with CVST.OBSERVATIONS VITT appears to be similar to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), with both disorders associated with thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, and presence of autoantibodies to platelet factor 4 (PF4). Unlike VITT, HIT is triggered by recent exposure to heparin. Owing to similarities between these 2 conditions and lack of high-quality evidence, interim recommendations suggest avoiding heparin and heparin analogues in patients with VITT. Based on initial reports, female sex and age younger than 60 years were identified as possible risk factors for VITT. Treatment consists of therapeutic anticoagulation with nonheparin anticoagulants and prevention of formation of autoantibody-PF4 complexes, the latter being achieved by administration of high-dose intravenous immunoglobin (IVIG). Steroids, which can theoretically inhibit the production of new antibodies, have been used in combination with IVIG. In severe cases, plasma exchange should be used for clearing autoantibodies. Monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and eculizumab, can be considered when other therapies fail. Routine platelet transfusions, aspirin, and warfarin should be avoided because of the possibility of worsening thrombosis and magnifying bleeding risk.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Adverse events like VITT, while uncommon, have been described despite vaccination remaining the most essential component in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. While it seems logical to consider the use of types of vaccines (eg, mRNA-based administration) in individuals at high risk, treatment should consist of therapeutic anticoagulation mostly with nonheparin products and IVIG.

CAS and CEA were associated with similar rates of a composite of periprocedural death, stroke, MI, or nonperiprocedural ipsilateral stroke. The risk of long-term overall stroke was significantly higher with CAS, and was mostly attributed to periprocedural minor stroke. CAS was associated with lower rates of periprocedural MI and cranial nerve palsy than CEA.

Despite a higher upfront risk of complications, women derive a better long-term survival after TAVR compared with men.

This systematic review suggests no difference in clinical outcomes with a rate or rhythm-control strategy with AF. However, rehospitalization rates appear to be lower with pharmacological rate control for all ages, while finding support for rhythm control in younger patients.

No abstract

PurposePatients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and prior stroke are classified as high risk in all risk stratification schemes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) to warfarin in patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).MethodsThree randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including total 14527 patients, comparing NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin were included in the analysis. Primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic stroke, and primary safety endpoint was intracranial bleeding. Random-effects models were used to pool efficacy and safety data across RCTs. RevMan and Stata software were used for direct and indirect comparisons, respectively.ResultsIn patients with AF and previous stroke or TIA, effects of NOACs were not statistically different from that of warfarin, in reduction of stroke (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73- 1.01), disabling and fatal stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.04), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 -1.02). Randomization to NOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of intracranial bleeding (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70). There were no major differences in efficacy between apixaban, dabigatran (110 mg BID and 150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban. Major bleeding was significantly lower with apixaban and dabigatran (110 mg BID) compared with dabigatran (150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban.ConclusionNOACs may not be more effective than warfarin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with a prior history of cerebrovascular ischemia, but have a lower risk of intracranial bleeding.