Clinical Outcomes Associated With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundLAAO has been shown to be noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF. However, anticoagulation with DOACs is now preferred over warfarin as thromboprophylaxis in AF.MethodsPatients with AF enrolled in the Amulet Observational Registry (n = 1,088) who had successful LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device (n = 1,078) were compared with a propensity score–matched control cohort of incident AF patients (n = 1,184) treated by DOACs identified from Danish national patient registries. Propensity score matching was based on the covariates of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores for predicting stroke and bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3), or all-cause mortality, and follow-up was 2 years.ResultsAF patients treated with LAAO had a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome as compared with patients treated with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.67). Total events and event rates per 100 patient-years were (LAAO vs. DOACs) 256 vs. 461 and 14.5 vs. 25.7, respectively. The risk of ischemic stroke was comparable between groups (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.75), while risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.79) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.64) were significantly lower in patients treated with LAAO.ConclusionsAmong high-risk AF patients, LAAO in comparison with DOACs may have similar stroke prevention efficacy but lower risk of major bleeding and mortality.     

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Disease

BackgroundAdvanced liver disease is known to increase the risk for bleeding and affects the hepatic clearance and metabolism of drugs. Subjects with active liver disease were excluded from pivotal clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), so the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with liver disease is lacking.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare DOACs with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and liver disease.MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, subjects with atrial fibrillation and active liver disease treated with oral anticoagulation were included (12,778 with warfarin and 24,575 with DOACs), and analyzed ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding, all-cause death, and the composite outcome. Propensity score weighting was used to balance covariates between the 2 groups.ResultsDOACs were associated with lower risks for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.548; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.485 to 0.618), intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 0.479; 95% CI 0.394 to 0.581), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR: 0.819; 95% CI: 0.619 to 0.949), major bleeding (HR: 0.650; 95% CI: 0.575 to 0.736), all-cause death (HR: 0.698; 95% CI: 0.636 to 0.765), and the composite outcome (HR: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.567 to 0.656) than warfarin. Among the total study population, 13% of patients (n = 4,942) were identified as having significant active liver disease. A consistent benefit was observed in patients with significant active liver disease (HR for the composite outcome: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.577 to 0.827).ConclusionsIn this large Asian population with atrial fibrillation and liver disease, DOACs showed better effectiveness and safety than warfarin, which was consistent in those with significant active liver disease.     

Evaluation of Dual Versus Triple Therapy by Landmark Analysis in the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the early versus late benefits and risks of dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.MethodsA total of 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were randomized to receive dabigatran 110 mg, or dabigatran 150 mg plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (and no aspirin), or warfarin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 and 90 days.ResultsThere was a consistent and large reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in patients randomized to dual therapy during the first 30 days (110 mg: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.66; p < 0.0001; 150 mg: HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72; p = 0.0006) compared with warfarin triple therapy. There was early net clinical benefit in both dabigatran groups versus warfarin (110 mg: HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88; p = 0.0062; 150 mg: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79; p = 0.0015), due to larger reductions in bleeding than increased thrombotic events for dabigatran 110 mg and bleeding reduction without increased thrombotic risk for dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy. After the removal of aspirin in the warfarin group, bleeding remained lower with dabigatran 110 mg and was similar with dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin.ConclusionsIn RE-DUAL PCI, in which patients in the dual-therapy arms were treated with aspirin for an average of only 1.6 days, there was early net clinical benefit with both doses of dabigatran dual therapy, without an increase in thrombotic events with dabigatran 150 mg. This could be helpful in the subset of patients with elevated risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.     

Dabigatran Dual Therapy Versus Warfarin Triple Therapy Post–PCI in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with or without diabetes mellitus in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BackgroundIt is unclear whether dual therapy is as safe and efficacious as triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsIn RE-DUAL PCI, 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation (993 with diabetes) who had undergone PCI were assigned to warfarin triple therapy (warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin) or dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg twice daily and clopidogrel or ticagrelor). Median follow-up was 13 months. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and the main efficacy outcome was the composite of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization.ResultsAmong patients with diabetes, the incidence of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was 15.2% in the dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy group versus 27.5% in the warfarin triple therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.67) and 23.8% in the dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy group versus 25.1% in the warfarin triple therapy group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.22). Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was also reduced with both dabigatran doses among patients without diabetes (dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.70; dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83). Risk for the efficacy endpoint was comparable between treatment groups for both patients with and those without diabetes. No interaction between treatment and diabetes subgroup could be observed, either for bleeding or for composite efficacy endpoints.ConclusionsIn this subgroup analysis, dabigatran dual therapy had a lower risk for bleeding and a comparable rate of the efficacy endpoint compared with warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.     

Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients With Left Ventricular Mural Thrombus

BackgroundContemporary data are lacking regarding the prognosis and management of left ventricular thrombus (LVT).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of anticoagulation therapy on LVT evolution using sequential imaging and to determine the impact of LVT regression on the incidence of thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality.MethodsFrom January 2011 to January 2018, a comprehensive computerized search of LVT was conducted using 90,065 consecutive echocardiogram reports. Only patients with a confirmed LVT were included after imaging review by 2 independent experts. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute peripheral artery emboli, were determined as well as major bleeding events (BARC ≥3) and all-cause mortality rates.ResultsThere were 159 patients with a confirmed LVT. Patients were treated with vitamin K antagonists (48.4%), parenteral heparins (27.7%), and direct oral anticoagulants (22.6%). Antiplatelet therapy was used in 67.9% of the population. A reduction of the LVT area from baseline was observed in 121 patients (76.1%), and total LVT regression occurred in 99 patients (62.3%) within a median time of 103 days (interquartile range: 32 to 392 days). The independent correlates of LVT regression were a nonischemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43 to 5.26; p = 0.002) and a smaller baseline thrombus area (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96; p = 0.031). The frequency of MACE was 37.1%; mortality 18.9%; stroke 13.3%; and major bleeding 13.2% during a median follow-up of 632 days (interquartile range: 187 to 1,126 days). MACE occurred in 35.4% and 40.0% of patients with total LVT regression and those with persistent LVT (p = 0.203). A reduced risk of mortality was observed among patients with total LVT regression (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.98; p = 0.039), whereas an increased major bleeding risk was observed among patients with persistent LVT (9.1% vs. 12%; HR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.82; p = 0.011). A left ventricular ejection fraction ≥35% (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.93; p = 0.029) and anticoagulation therapy >3 months (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.88; p = 0.021) were independently associated with less MACE.ConclusionsThe presence of LVT was associated with a very high risk of MACE and mortality. Total LVT regression, obtained with different anticoagulant regimens, was associated with reduced mortality.     

Prophylactic Rivaroxaban Therapy for Left Ventricular Thrombus After Anterior ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rivaroxaban on left ventricle thromboprophylaxis in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundAnterior STEMI is associated with an increased risk of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) formation. The contemporary role of prophylactic rivaroxaban therapy remains unclear.MethodsWe randomly assigned 279 patients with anterior STEMI who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily for 30 days) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or only DAPT. The primary efficacy outcome was the LVT formation within 30 days. Net clinical adverse events were assessed at 30 days and 180 days, including all-cause mortality, LVT, systemic embolism, rehospitalization for cardiovascular events, and bleeding.ResultsThe addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to DAPT reduced LVT formation within 30 days compared with only DAPT (0.7% vs 8.6%; HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.62; P = 0.015; P < 0.001 for superiority). Net clinical adverse events were lower within 30 days in the rivaroxaban group versus those in the only DAPT group and remained relatively low throughout the follow-up period. There were no significant differences in bleeding events between the 2 groups in 30 days and 180 days. However, 1 case of intracranial hemorrhage (major bleeding) occurred in the rivaroxaban group within 30 days.ConclusionsOur results supported that the short-duration addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to DAPT could prevent LVT formation in patients with anterior STEMI following primary percutaneous coronary intervention. A larger multiple-institution study is necessary to determine the generalizability.     

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Patients With Vascular Disease and Renal Dysfunction: From the COMPASS Trial

BackgroundChronic kidney disease is associated with an increased risk of both bleeding and ischemic cardiovascular events.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the balance of risks and benefits from the dual pathway antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily [bd] plus aspirin, compared with aspirin) in vascular patients with or without moderate renal dysfunction.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial involving 27,395 patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease.ResultsIn COMPASS, 21,111 patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline of ≥60 ml/min, 6,276 had a GRF of <60 ml/min. Both the primary efficacy outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding were more frequent in those with renal dysfunction, and the frequency of these outcome events was inversely related to GFR. However, the primary outcome was consistently reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bd plus aspirin, irrespective of GFR category (GFR ≥60 ml/min, 3.5% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 4.5% aspirin alone, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64 to 0.90; GFR <60 ml/min, 6.4% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 8.4% aspirin alone, HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.94). Major bleeding was more frequent with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in those with GFR ≥60 ml/min (2.9% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 1.6% aspirin alone, HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.28) and similarly in those with GFR <60 ml/min (3.9% rivaroxaban plus aspirin, 2.7% aspirin alone, HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.07).ConclusionsThe benefits of the dual pathway COMPASS regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bd plus aspirin), versus aspirin alone, are preserved in patients with moderate renal dysfunction without evidence of an excess hazard of bleeding.     

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants in High-Risk Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundPercutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is noninferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF)–related stroke. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs, and their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAC is unknown.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare DOACs with LAAC in high-risk patients with AF.MethodsLeft Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation (PRAGUE-17) was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LAAC with DOACs. Patients were eligible to be enrolled if they had nonvalvular AF; were indicated for oral anticoagulation (OAC); and had a history of bleeding requiring intervention or hospitalization, a history of a cardioembolic event while taking an OAC, and/or a CHA₂DS₂-VASc of ≥3 and HAS-BLED of >2. Patients were randomized to receive LAAC or DOAC. The primary composite outcome was stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure-/device-related complications. The primary analysis was by modified intention to treat.ResultsA high-risk patient cohort (CHA₂DS₂-VASc: 4.7 ± 1.5) was randomized to receive LAAC (n = 201) or DOAC (n = 201). LAAC was successful in 181 of 201 (90.0%) patients. In the DOAC group, apixaban was most frequently used (192 of 201; 95.5%). At a median 19.9 months of follow-up, the annual rates of the primary outcome were 10.99% with LAAC and 13.42% with DOAC (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.31; p = 0.44; p = 0.004 for noninferiority). There were no differences between groups for the components of the composite endpoint: all-stroke/TIA (sHR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.51), clinically significant bleeding (sHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.52), and cardiovascular death (sHR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.62). Major LAAC-related complications occurred in 9 (4.5%) patients.ConclusionsAmong patients at high risk for stroke and increased risk of bleeding, LAAC was noninferior to DOAC in preventing major AF-related cardiovascular, neurological, and bleeding events. (Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation [PRAGUE-17]; NCT02426944)     

Impact of Pre-Existing and New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate impact of new-onset and pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) long-term outcomes compared with patients without AF.BackgroundPre-existing and new-onset AF in patients undergoing TAVR are associated with poor outcomes.MethodsThe study identified 72,660 patients ≥65 years of age who underwent nonapical TAVR between 2014 and 2016 using Medicare inpatient claims. History of AF was defined by diagnoses on claims during the 3 years preceding the TAVR, and new-onset AF was defined as occurrence of AF during the TAVR admission or within 30 days after TAVR in a patient without prior history of AF. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, and readmission for bleeding, stroke, and heart failure (HF).ResultsOverall, 40.7% had pre-existing AF (n = 29,563) and 6.8% experienced new-onset AF (n = 2,948) after TAVR. Mean age was 81.3, 82.4, and 83.8 years in patients with no AF, pre-existing, and new-onset AF, respectively. Pre-existing AF patients had the highest burden of comorbidities. After follow-up of 73,732 person-years, mortality was higher with new-onset AF compared with pre-existing and no AF (29.7, 22.6, and 12.8 per 100 person-years, respectively; p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital TAVR volume, new-onset AF remained associated with higher mortality compared with no AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.068, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.92 to 2.20; p < 0.01) and pre-existing AF (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.45; p < 0.01). In competing risk analysis, new-onset AF was associated with higher risk of bleeding (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.48 to 1.86; p < 0.01), stroke (sHR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.63 to 2.26; p < 0.01), and HF (sHR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.16; p < 0.01) compared with pre-existing AF.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing TAVR, new-onset AF is associated with increased risk of mortality and bleeding, stroke, and HF hospitalizations compared with pre-existing AF or no AF.     

Mobile Health Technology to Improve Care for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundCurrent management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited by low detection of AF, non-adherence to guidelines, and lack of consideration of patients’ preferences, thus highlighting the need for a more holistic and integrated approach to AF management.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile health (mHealth) technology-supported AF integrated management strategy would reduce AF-related adverse events, compared with usual care.MethodsThis is a cluster randomized trial of patients with AF older than 18 years of age who were enrolled in 40 cities in China. Recruitment began on June 1, 2018 and follow-up ended on August 16, 2019. Patients with AF were randomized to receive usual care, or integrated care based on a mobile AF Application (mAFA) incorporating the ABC (Atrial Fibrillation Better Care) Pathway: A, Avoid stroke; B, Better symptom management; and C, Cardiovascular and other comorbidity risk reduction. The primary composite outcome was a composite of stroke/thromboembolism, all-cause death, and rehospitalization. Rehospitalization alone was a secondary outcome. Cardiovascular events were assessed using Cox proportional hazard modeling after adjusting for baseline risk.ResultsThere were 1,646 patients allocated to mAFA intervention (mean age, 67.0 years; 38.0% female) with mean follow-up of 262 days, whereas 1,678 patients were allocated to usual care (mean age, 70.0 years; 38.0% female) with mean follow-up of 291 days. Rates of the composite outcome of ‘ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, death, and rehospitalization’ were lower with the mAFA intervention compared with usual care (1.9% vs. 6.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.67; p < 0.001). Rates of rehospitalization were lower with the mAFA intervention (1.2% vs. 4.5%; HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.60; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses by sex, age, AF type, risk score, and comorbidities demonstrated consistently lower HRs for the composite outcome for patients receiving the mAFA intervention compared with usual care (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsAn integrated care approach to holistic AF care, supported by mHealth technology, reduces the risks of rehospitalization and clinical adverse events. (Mobile Health [mHealth] technology integrating atrial fibrillation screening and ABC management approach trial; ChiCTR-OOC-17014138).     

Long-Term Clinical Impact of Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Following PCI: An ADAPT-DES Substudy

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine correlates and consequences of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) on clinical outcomes in patients with or without pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD).BackgroundThe incidence and impact of CA-AKI on clinical outcomes during contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not fully defined.MethodsThe ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug Eluting Stents) study was a prospective, multicenter registry of 8,582 patients treated with ≥1 drug-eluting stent(s). CA-AKI was defined as a post-PCI increase in serum creatinine of >0.5 mg/dL or a relative increase of ≥25% compared with pre-PCI. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m². The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of net adverse clinical events (NACE): All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), definite or probable stent thrombosis, or major bleeding.ResultsOf 7287 (85%) patients with evaluable data, 476 (6.5%) developed CA-AKI. In a multivariable model, older age, female sex, Caucasian race, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, CKD, presentation with ST-segment elevation MI, Killip class II to IV, radial access, intra-aortic balloon pump use, hypotension, and number of stents were independent predictors of CA-AKI. The 2-year NACE rate was higher in patients with CA-AKI (adjusted HR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.42-2.49), as was each component of NACE (all-cause mortality, HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.22-2.55; MI, HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.18-2.36; definite/probable stent thrombosis, HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.10-2.65; and major bleeding, HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.06-1.80). Compared with the CA-AKI–/CKD– group, the CA-AKI+/CKD– (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.33-2.52), CA-AKI–/CKD+ (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.15-2.13), CA-AKI+/CKD+ (HR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.92-5.67), and maintenance dialysis (HR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.65-4.31) groups were at higher risk of NACE.ConclusionsCA-AKI was relatively common after contemporary PCI and was associated with increased 2-year rates of NACE. Patients with pre-existing CKD were at particularly high risk for NACE after CA-AKI.     

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs).BackgroundThe outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined.MethodsPatients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year.ResultsPatients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding.ConclusionsThese results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)     

Association of anticoagulant-related bleeding events with cancer detection in atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundA bleeding episode may herald cancer in the general population. Oral anticoagulants (OACs), the mainstay treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), are known to increase the risk of bleeding, and may thus promote an earlier diagnosis of cancer. Data regarding the association of bleeding episodes with cancer in patients with AF on OACs are scarce.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, and Central) and gray literature sources for studies of patients with nonvalvular AF under any OAC, from inception until 14 October 2020. The primary outcome was the association of bleeding occurrences with the detection of cancer. A subgroup analysis was performed according to OAC type [NOAC (non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant) versus VKA (vitamin K antagonist)].ResultsOverall, 4 studies were included, accounting for a total of 144,362 patients with AF receiving OAC. During follow-up, 816 (0.57%) cases of cancer were confirmed. The presence of a bleeding event, either major or minor, was associated with a higher risk for cancer detection (odds ratio [OR] 8.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.98-15.51, and I² 85%). Heterogeneity was explained after studies were stratified by the type of OAC (NOACs: OR 6.12, 95% CI 4.47-8.37, I² 0%, VKAs: OR 15.16, 95% CI 12.61-18.23, and I² 0%).ConclusionThe detection of a bleeding event could be an alerting sign of cancer in patients with AF on OACs, particularly in patients receiving VKAs.Registration number (DOI)available in https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3948R, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/3948R.     

Association of Multiple Enrichment Criteria With Ischemic and Bleeding Risks Among COMPASS-Eligible Patients

BackgroundThe COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial found clinical benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but at the expense of increased bleeding risk in patients with stable vascular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the balance of ischemic and bleeding risks according to the presence of ≥1 enrichment criteria in “COMPASS-eligible” patients.MethodsKey COMPASS selection criteria were applied to identify a COMPASS-eligible population (n = 16,875) from the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry of stable atherothrombotic patients. Ischemic outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Bleeding outcome was serious bleeding (hemorrhagic stroke, hospitalization for bleeding, transfusion).ResultsPatients were categorized according to the enrichment criteria: age >65 years (81.5%), diabetes (41.0%), moderate renal failure (40.2%), peripheral artery disease (33.7%), current smoker (13.8%), heart failure (13.3%), ischemic stroke (11.1%), and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (8.7%). Each criterion was associated with a consistent increase in ischemic and bleeding events, but no individual subgroup derived a more favorable trade-off. Patients with multiple criteria had a dramatic increase in ischemic risk (7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6% to 8.7%], 12.5% [95% CI: 11.1% to 14.1%], 16.6% [95% CI: 14.7% to 18.6%], and 21.8% [95% CI: 19.9% to 23.9%] with 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 enrichment criteria, respectively), but a more modest absolute increase in bleeding risk (1.5% [95% CI: 0.9% to 2.1%], 1.8% [95% CI: 1.3% to 2.2%], 2.0% [95% CI: 1.5% to 2.6%], 3.2% [95% CI: 2.6% to 3.9%]).ConclusionsIn a population of stable vascular patients at high risk of atherothrombotic events, the subset with multiple enrichment criteria had a greater absolute increase in ischemic than in bleeding risk and may be good candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin.     

Long-Term Outcomes After Atrial Septal Defect Transcatheter Closure by Age and Against Population Controls

ObjectivesThe long-term outcomes after transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects (ASD) in adults are reported and compared between age groups and against population control patients.BackgroundASD is the second most common lesion in congenital heart disease. Comprehensive data on long-term outcomes after ASD closure are limited.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study enrolled adult patients with secundum ASD closure between 1998 and 2016. Information from a detailed clinical registry was linked to population-based administrative databases to capture outcomes. The population control cohort was matched using important prognostic characteristics.ResultsThe cohort included 1,390 ASD patients of whom 32% were <40 years of age, 45% were 40 to 60 years of age, and 23% were >60 years of age at closure. The median follow-up was 10.6 years (interquartile range: 6.2 to 14.0 years). New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) was the most frequent outcome overall (14.9%). The incidence of adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was higher in the >60 years of age group than in the younger groups. In adjusted analysis, patients >60 years of age continued exhibiting higher risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]: 8.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.40 to 21.43) and cardiovascular (CV)-specific mortality compared with the <40 years of age group. The risk of new-onset AF (HR: 3.73; 95% CI: 2.79 to 4.98) and any AF hospitalization (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.89) was higher in the ASD than in the control population, whereas there was no difference in all-cause and CV-specific mortality.ConclusionsAs expected, rates of adverse events post-ASD closure are higher in older age groups, but long-term mortality was comparable to that of a population control cohort. The high rates of AF necessitate future investigations.     

Rivaroxaban Monotherapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Stenting: Insights From the AFIRE Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this AFIRE (Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease) trial subgroup analysis was to examine rivaroxaban monotherapy benefits and their relation to the time between stenting and enrollment among patients after coronary stenting.BackgroundOf 2,215 patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease in the AFIRE trial, rivaroxaban monotherapy was noninferior to rivaroxaban plus antiplatelet therapy (combination therapy) in terms of efficacy and superior for safety endpoints. However, thrombotic risk after antiplatelet therapy cessation remained a concern among 1,444 patients who had undergone coronary stenting >1 year before enrollment.MethodsThe benefits of rivaroxaban monotherapy in coronary stenting subgroups were assessed for efficacy (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring revascularization, or death of any cause), safety (major bleeding defined according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria), ischemic endpoints, net adverse clinical event, and time between stenting and enrollment.ResultsEfficacy and safety endpoints for monotherapy were superior to combination therapy, with HRs of 0.70 for efficacy (95% CI: 0.50-0.98; P = 0.036) and 0.55 for safety (95% CI: 0.33-0.92; P = 0.019). For ischemic endpoints, the HR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58-1.15; P = 0.240). The HR became smaller with longer time between stenting and enrollment (efficacy, P for interaction = 0.158; safety, P = 0.097).ConclusionsIn patients with atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting, the benefits of rivaroxaban monotherapy for efficacy and safety endpoints were consistent with those in the whole AFIRE trial population. The benefits became apparent with longer time between stenting and enrollment. (Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Study [AFIRE]; UMIN000016612, NCT02642419)     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy Versus Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: An Individual Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents.BackgroundThe role of abbreviated DAPT followed by an oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after PCI remains uncertain.MethodsTwo randomized trials, including 14,628 patients undergoing PCI, comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with standard DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints were identified, and individual patient data were analyzed using 1-step fixed-effect models. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019143120). The primary outcomes were the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding tested for superiority and, if met, the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year, tested for noninferiority against a margin of 1.25 on a hazard ratio (HR) scale.ResultsBleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurred in fewer patients with ticagrelor than DAPT (0.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; HR: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 231 patients (3.2%) with ticagrelor and in 254 patients (3.5%) with DAPT (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.10; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). Ticagrelor was associated with lower risk for all-cause (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.96; p = 0.027) and cardiovascular (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.99; p = 0.044) mortality. Rates of myocardial infarction (2.01% vs. 2.05%; p = 0.88), stent thrombosis (0.29% vs. 0.38%; p = 0.32), and stroke (0.47% vs. 0.36%; p = 0.30) were similar.ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding compared with standard DAPT, without a concomitant increase in ischemic events.     

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesThe authors aimed to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundNOAF is a common complication after TAVR, although estimates of the precise occurrence are variable. This study sought to quantify the occurrence of NOAF after TAVR and to explore the outcomes and predictors associated with this complication.MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from 2016 to 2020 for articles that reported NOAF after TAVR. We extracted data for studies published before 2016 from a previous systematic review. We pooled data using a random effects model.ResultsWe identified 179 studies with 241,712 total participants (55,271 participants with pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) were excluded) that reported NOAF from 2008 to 2020. The pooled occurrence of NOAF after TAVR was 9.9% (95% CI: 8.1%-12%). NOAF after TAVR was associated with a longer index hospitalization (mean difference = 2.66 days; 95% CI: 1.05-4.27), a higher risk of stroke in the first 30 days (risk ratio [RR]: 2.35; 95% CI: 2.12-2.61), 30-day mortality (RR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.12-2.76), major or life-threatening bleeding (RR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.39-1.84), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05-1.18). Risk factors for the development of NOAF after TAVR included higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, transapical access, pulmonary hypertension, chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and severe mitral regurgitation, suggesting that the risk for NOAF is highest in more comorbid TAVR patients.ConclusionsNOAF is common after TAVR. Whether AF after TAVR is a causal factor or a marker of sicker patients remains unclear.     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI in High-Risk Patients With Prior MI: A Prespecified TWILIGHT Substudy

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention.BackgroundPatients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization.ResultsA total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P_interaction = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P_interaction = 0.52).ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)