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.     

Oral Anticoagulation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Long-Term Dialysis

BackgroundPatients on long-term dialysis are at increased risk of bleeding. Although oral anticoagulants (OACs) are recommended for atrial fibrillation (AF) to reduce the risk of stroke, randomized trials have excluded these populations. As such, the net clinical benefit of OACs among patients on dialysis is unknown.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of OACs in patients with AF on long-term dialysis.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through June 10, 2019, for studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of different OAC strategies in patients with AF on long-term dialysis. The efficacy outcomes were ischemic stroke and/or systemic thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and the safety outcome was major bleeding.ResultsThis study identified 16 eligible observational studies (N = 71,877) regarding patients on long-term dialysis who had AF. Only 2 of 16 studies investigated direct OACs. Outcomes for dabigatran and rivaroxaban were limited to major bleeding events. Compared with no anticoagulants, apixaban and warfarin were not associated with a significant decrease in stroke and/or systemic thromboembolism (apixaban 5 mg, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 1.17; apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.93; warfarin, HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.16). Apixaban 5 mg was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (vs. warfarin, HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.93; vs. apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.90; vs. no anticoagulant, HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.90). Warfarin was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than apixaban 5 min/2.5 mg and no anticoagulant (vs. apixaban 5 mg, HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.88; vs. apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.82; vs. no anticoagulant, HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.50). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were also associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding than apixaban and no anticoagulant.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that OACs were not associated with a reduced risk of thromboembolism in patients with AF on long-term dialysis. Warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban were associated with significantly higher bleeding risk compared with apixaban and no anticoagulant. The benefit-to-risk ratio of OACs in patients with AF on long-term dialysis warrants validation in randomized clinical trials.     

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.     

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.     

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)     

TAVR Patients Requiring Anticoagulation: Direct Oral Anticoagulant or Vitamin K Antagonist?

ObjectivesUsing French transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) registries linked with the nationwide administrative databases, the study compared the rates of long-term mortality, bleeding, and ischemic events after TAVR in patients requiring oral anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).BackgroundThe choice of optimal drug for anticoagulation after TAVR remains debated.MethodsData from the France-TAVI and FRANCE-2 registries were linked to the French national health single-payer claims database, from 2010 to 2017. Propensity score matching was used to reduce treatment-selection bias. Two primary endpoints were death from any cause (efficacy) and major bleeding (safety).ResultsA total of 24,581 patients who underwent TAVR were included and 8,962 (36.4%) were treated with OAC. Among anticoagulated patients, 2,180 (24.3%) were on DOACs. After propensity matching, at 3 years, mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-1.67; P < 0.005) and major bleeding including hemorrhagic stroke (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.17-2.29; P < 0.005) were lower in patients on DOACs compared with those on VKAs. The rates of ischemic stroke (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.81-2.15; P = 0.27) and acute coronary syndrome (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.68-1.99; P = 0.57) did not differ among groups.ConclusionsIn these large multicenter French TAVR registries with an exhaustive clinical follow-up, the long-term mortality and major bleeding were lower with DOACs than VKAs at discharge. The present study supports preferential use of DOACs rather than VKAs in patients requiring oral anticoagulation therapy after TAVR.     

Deep-Learning for Epicardial Adipose Tissue Assessment With Computed Tomography: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction

BackgroundEpicardial adipose tissue (EAT) volume is a marker of visceral obesity that can be measured in coronary computed tomography angiograms (CCTA). The clinical value of integrating this measurement in routine CCTA interpretation has not been documented.ObjectivesThis study sought to develop a deep-learning network for automated quantification of EAT volume from CCTA, test it in patients who are technically challenging, and validate its prognostic value in routine clinical care.MethodsThe deep-learning network was trained and validated to autosegment EAT volume in 3,720 CCTA scans from the ORFAN (Oxford Risk Factors and Noninvasive Imaging Study) cohort. The model was tested in patients with challenging anatomy and scan artifacts and applied to a longitudinal cohort of 253 patients post-cardiac surgery and 1,558 patients from the SCOT-HEART (Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart) Trial, to investigate its prognostic value.ResultsExternal validation of the deep-learning network yielded a concordance correlation coefficient of 0.970 for machine vs human. EAT volume was associated with coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR] per SD increase in EAT volume: 1.13 [95% CI: 1.04-1.30]; P = 0.01), and atrial fibrillation (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.08-1.40]; P = 0.03), after correction for risk factors (including body mass index). EAT volume predicted all-cause mortality (HR per SD: 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10-1.37]; P = 0.02), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.26 [95% CI:1.09-1.38]; P = 0.001), and stroke (HR: 1.20 [95% CI: 1.09-1.38]; P = 0.02) independently of risk factors in SCOT-HEART (5-year follow-up). It also predicted in-hospital (HR: 2.67 [95% CI: 1.26-3.73]; P ≤ 0.01) and long-term post–cardiac surgery atrial fibrillation (7-year follow-up; HR: 2.14 [95% CI: 1.19-2.97]; P ≤ 0.01).ConclusionsAutomated assessment of EAT volume is possible in CCTA, including in patients who are technically challenging; it forms a powerful marker of metabolically unhealthy visceral obesity, which could be used for cardiovascular risk stratification.     

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Antiphospholipid Syndromes: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome remain controversial.ObjectivesThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 9, 2022. The 2 main efficacy outcomes were a composite of arterial thrombotic events and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Random effects models with inverse variance were used.ResultsOur search retrieved 253 studies. Four open-label randomized controlled trials involving 472 patients were included (mean control-arm time-in-therapeutic-range 60%). All had proper random sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment. Overall, the use of DOACs compared with VKAs was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (OR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.87-15.75; P < 0.001, I² = 0%), especially stroke, and the composite of arterial thrombotic events or VTE (OR: 4.46; 95% CI: 1.12-17.84; P = 0.03, I² = 0%). The odds of subsequent VTE (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.31-4.55; P = 0.79, I² = 0%), or major bleeding (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.42-2.47; P = 0.97; I² = 0%) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.ConclusionsPatients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome randomized to DOACs compared with VKAs appear to have increased risk for arterial thrombosis. No significant differences were observed between patients randomized to DOACs vs VKAs in the risk of subsequent VTE or major bleeding.     

Incident Clinical and Mortality Associations of Myocardial Native T1 in the UK Biobank

BackgroundCardiac magnetic resonance native T1-mapping provides noninvasive, quantitative, and contrast-free myocardial characterization. However, its predictive value in population cohorts has not been studied.ObjectivesThe associations of native T1 with incident events were evaluated in 42,308 UK Biobank participants over 3.17 ± 1.53 years of prospective follow-up.MethodsNative T1-mapping was performed in 1 midventricular short-axis slice using the Shortened Modified Look-Locker Inversion recovery technique (WIP780B) in 1.5-T scanners (Siemens Healthcare). Global myocardial T1 was calculated using an automated tool. Associations of T1 with: 1) prevalent risk factors (eg, diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol); 2) prevalent and incident diseases (eg, any cardiovascular disease [CVD], any brain disease, valvular heart disease, heart failure, nonischemic cardiomyopathies, cardiac arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation [AF], myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease [IHD], and stroke); and 3) mortality (eg, all-cause, CVD, and IHD) were examined. Results are reported as odds ratios (ORs) or HRs per SD increment of T1 value with 95% CIs and corrected P values, from logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models.ResultsHigher myocardial T1 was associated with greater odds of a range of prevalent conditions (eg, any CVD, brain disease, heart failure, nonischemic cardiomyopathies, AF, stroke, and diabetes). The strongest relationships were with heart failure (OR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.26-1.57]; P = 1.60 × 10^-9) and nonischemic cardiomyopathies (OR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.16-1.66]; P = 2.42 × 10^-4). Native T1 was positively associated with incident AF (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.10-1.43]; P = 9.19 × 10^-4), incident heart failure (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.31-1.65]; P = 4.79 × 10^-11), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.12-1.36]; P = 1.51 × 10^-5), CVD mortality (HR: 1.40 [95% CI: 1.14-1.73]; P = 0.0014), and IHD mortality (HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 1.03-1.80]; P = 0.0310).ConclusionsThis large population study demonstrates the utility of myocardial native T1-mapping for disease discrimination and outcome prediction.     

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.ConclusionsAspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.     

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.     

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With Fontan Circulation

BackgroundThe optimal strategy for thromboprophylaxis in patients with a Fontan circulation is unknown.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin, warfarin, and nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in a network meta-analysis.MethodsRelevant studies published by February 2022 were included. The primary efficacy outcome was thromboembolic events; major bleeding was a secondary safety outcome. Frequentist network meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of both outcomes. Ranking of treatments was performed based on probability (P) score.ResultsA total of 21 studies were included (26,546 patient-years). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, NOAC (IRR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03-0.40), warfarin (IRR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.14-0.37), and aspirin (IRR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.15-0.39) were all associated with significantly lower rates of thromboembolic events. However, the network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the rates of major bleeding (NOAC: IRR: 1.45 [95% CI: 0.28-7.43]; warfarin: IRR: 1.38 [95% CI: 0.41-4.69]; and aspirin: IRR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.20-2.58]). Rankings, which simultaneously analyze competing interventions, suggested that NOACs have the highest P score to prevent thromboembolic events (P score 0.921), followed by warfarin (P score 0.582), aspirin (P score 0.498), and no thromboprophylaxis (P score 0.001). Aspirin tended to have the most favorable overall profile.ConclusionsAspirin, warfarin, and NOAC are associated with lower risk of thromboembolic events. Recognizing the limited number of patients and heterogeneity of studies using NOACs, the results support the safety and efficacy of NOACs in patients with a Fontan circulation.     

The 5 Phenotypes of Tricuspid Regurgitation: Insight From Cluster Analysis of Clinical and Echocardiographic Variables

BackgroundThe recent morphologic classification of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) (ie, atrial functional, ventricular functional, lead related, and primary) does not capture underlying comorbidities and clinical characteristics.ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify the different phenotypes of TR using unsupervised cluster analysis and to determine whether differences in clinical outcomes were associated with these phenotypes.MethodsWe included 13,611 patients with ≥moderate TR from January 2004 to April 2019 in the final analyses. Baseline demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic data were obtained from electronic medical records and echocardiography reports. Ward’s minimum variance method was used to cluster patients based on 38 variables. The analysis of all-cause mortality was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared using log-rank test.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 72 ± 13 years, and 56% were women. Cluster analysis identified 5 distinct phenotypes: cluster 1 represented “low-risk TR” with less severe TR, a lower prevalence of right ventricular enlargement, atrial fibrillation, and comorbidities; cluster 2 represented “high-risk TR”; and clusters 3, 4, and 5 represented TR associated with lung disease, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease, respectively. Cluster 1 had the lowest mortality followed by clusters 2 (HR: 2.22 [95% CI: 2.1-2.35]; P < 0.0001) and 4 (HR: 2.19 [95% CI: 2.04-2.35]; P < 0.0001); cluster 3 (HR: 2.45 [95% CI: 2.27-2.65]; P < 0.0001); and, lastly, cluster 5 (HR: 3.48 [95% CI: 3.07-3.95]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsCluster analysis identified 5 distinct novel subgroups of TR with differences in all-cause mortality. This phenotype-based classification improves our understanding of the interaction of comorbidities with this complex valve lesion and can inform clinical decision making.     

Prevalence of Left Atrial Thrombus in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundThe prevalence of left atrial (LA) thrombus in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) on guideline-directed anticoagulation is not well known, yet this may inform transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) use before cardioversion or catheter ablation.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to quantify LA thrombus prevalence among patients with AF/AFL on guideline-directed anticoagulation and to identify high-risk subgroups.MethodsEMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception to July 2020 for studies reporting on LA thrombus prevalence among patients with AF/AFL undergoing TEE following at least 3 weeks of continuous therapeutic oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Meta-analysis was performed using random effects models.ResultsThirty-five studies describing 14,653 patients were identified. The mean-weighted LA thrombus prevalence was 2.73% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.95% to 3.80%). LA thrombus prevalence was similar for VKA- and DOAC-treated patients (2.80%; 95% CI: 1.86% to 4.21% vs. 3.12%; 95% CI: 1.92% to 5.03%; p = 0.674). Patients with nonparoxysmal AF/AFL had a 4-fold higher LA thrombus prevalence compared with paroxysmal patients (4.81%; 95% CI: 3.35% to 6.86% vs. 1.03%; 95% CI: 0.52% to 2.03%; p < 0.001). LA thrombus prevalence was higher among patients undergoing cardioversion versus ablation (5.55%; 95% CI: 3.15% to 9.58% vs. 1.65%; 95% CI: 1.07% to 2.53%; p < 0.001). Patients with CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores ≥3 had a higher LA thrombus prevalence compared with patients with scores ≤2 (6.31%; 95% CI: 3.72% to 10.49% vs. 1.06%; 95% CI: 0.45% to 2.49%; p < 0.001).ConclusionsLA thrombus prevalence is high in subgroups of anticoagulated patients with AF/AFL, who may benefit from routine pre-procedural TEE use before cardioversion or catheter ablation.     

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.     

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.     

Prevalence and Impact of High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Left Main Artery Disease PCI

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and prognostic impact of high bleeding risk (HBR), as determined by the Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria, in real-world patients undergoing left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundLM PCI is often reserved for patients at increased risk for periprocedural adverse events. Patients at HBR represent a relevant percentage of this cohort, but their outcomes after LM PCI are still poorly investigated.MethodsAll patients undergoing LM PCI between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary care center were prospectively enrolled. Patients were defined as having HBR if they met at least 1 major or 2 minor Academic Research Consortium HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 12 months.ResultsAmong 619 enrolled patients, 55.3% were at HBR. The rate of the primary endpoint was 4-fold higher in patients at HBR compared with those without HBR (20.5% vs 4.9%; HR: 4.43; 95% CI: 2.31-8.48), driven by an increased risk for all-cause death (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.88-8.02) and MI (HR: 6.18; 95% CI: 1.83-20.9). Rates of target vessel or lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable in the 2 groups. Bleeding occurred more frequently in patients at HBR (HR: 3.77; 95% CI: 1.83-7.76). Consistent findings were observed after Cox multivariable regression adjustment.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing LM PCI, those with HBR are at increased risk for all-cause death, MI, and bleeding. Conversely, rates of repeat revascularization and stent thrombosis were comparable, suggesting frailty and comorbidities as primary causes of worse outcomes in patients at HBR.     

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)