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)     

Sex Differences in Safety and Effectiveness of LAAO: Insights From the Amulet IDE Trial

BackgroundWomen have higher rates of acute complications after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). However, data on long-term safety and effectiveness are limited.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine sex-specific short- and long-term outcomes after LAAO in the Amulet IDE (Amplatzer? Amulet? LAA Occluder) trial.MethodsThe following outcomes were compared between men and women: in-hospital complications, device-related outcomes (peridevice leak at 45 days and device-related thrombus at 18 months), and long-term clinical outcomes (death, thromboembolism, and bleeding). Subanalyses for the interaction between sex and device type were performed.ResultsA total of 1,833 patients underwent attempted device implantation (917 with the Amulet and 916 with the Watchman), of whom 734 were women (40%). Device success was 97.4% in men and 97.1% in women (P = 0.60). Rates of major in-hospital adverse events were higher in women (4.4% vs 1.9%; P < 0.01), driven by major bleeding (3.7% vs 1.0%; P < 0.01) and pericardial effusion requiring intervention (2.0% vs 0.5%; P < 0.01). Peridevice leak and device-related thrombus were similar in men and women (18.3% vs 18.9% [P = 0.78] and 3.3% vs 5.0% [P = 0.10], respectively). There were no differences between men and women in rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (2.6% vs 2.6%; P = 0.98), transient ischemic attack (1.3% vs 1.6%; P = 0.69), hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs 0.4%; P = 0.88), major bleeding (10.1% vs 10.9%; P = 0.49), cardiovascular death (4.3% vs 3.5%; P = 0.45), or all-cause death (8.9% vs 6.9%; P = 0.16).ConclusionsIn the Amulet IDE trial, long-term clinical outcomes including effectiveness following LAAO were comparable in men and women despite the higher rates of in-hospital complications due to major bleeding and pericardial effusion in women. (Amplatzer? Amulet? LAA Occluder Trial [Amulet IDE]; NCT02879448)     

Comparative Safety of Transcatheter LAAO With the First-Generation Watchman and Next-Generation Watchman FLX Devices

BackgroundProcedural complications limit the clinical benefit of transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Next-generation devices incorporate design modifications intended to improve procedural safety, but their clinical impact has not been described.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes for the Watchman FLX with the predicate Watchman 2.5 device.MethodsThe National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry was used to identify patients who received the Watchman FLX and an identical number of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 at the same sites directly preceding the first Watchman FLX case at each site. The primary endpoint was in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), defined as a composite of death, cardiac arrest, stroke, transient ischemic attack, intracranial hemorrhage, systemic arterial embolism, major bleeding, major vascular complication, myocardial infarction, pericardial effusion requiring intervention (percutaneous or surgical), and device embolization. A secondary analysis was performed using 2:1 propensity score matching of patients receiving the Watchman 2.5 or Watchman FLX.ResultsThe study cohort consisted of 27,013 patients receiving each device. The rate of in-hospital MAE was significantly lower for the Watchman FLX compared with the Watchman 2.5 (1.35% vs 2.40%; adjusted OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.65; P < 0.0001), driven largely by fewer pericardial effusions requiring intervention (0.42% vs 1.23%; adjusted OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28-0.42; P < 0.0001). The Watchman FLX was also associated with significant lower rates of the individual endpoints of in-hospital mortality (0.12% vs 0.24%; P < 0.0001), major bleeding (1.08% vs 2.05%; P < 0.0001), cardiac arrest (0.13% vs 0.24%; P = 0.006), and device embolization (0.02% vs 0.06%; P = 0.028), while myocardial infarction, stroke, and major vascular complications did not differ between groups. Propensity score matching analysis demonstrated similar results, with lower rates of MAE with the Watchman FLX (1.34% vs 2.58%; OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.46-0.58; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsTranscatheter LAAO with the Watchman FLX was associated with lower rates of in-hospital MAE compared with the predicate Watchman device, including mortality, pericardial effusion, major bleeding, cardiac arrest, and device embolization. This may favorably influence the balance of risks and benefits of transcatheter LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.     

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)     

Cierre de orejuela izquierda en pacientes mayores de 85 años: seguridad y eficacia del registro EWOLUTION

Introduction and objectivesElderly patients with atrial fibrillation are at greater risk of both cardioembolic events and major bleeding than younger patients. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) could be an attractive alternative for these patients, but there are limited data on outcomes with LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and efficacy of LAAO in patients ≥ 85 years old.MethodsA total of 1025 patients included in the EWOLUTION registry who underwent LAAO were analyzed and 84 patients ≥ 85 years old were identified and compared with the younger cohort.ResultsPatients ≥ 85 years old had higher estimated stroke and hemorrhagic risks than younger patients (CHA₂DS₂-VASc: 5.2 ± 1.2 vs 4.4 ± 1.6, P < .0001; HAS-BLED: 2.7 ± 1.1 vs 2.3 ± 1.2; P = .003; ≥ 85 years vs < 85 years). Procedural success was high and similar in both groups (98.8% vs 98.5%; P = .99). There were no differences in 7-day device- or procedure-related adverse event rates (2.6% in ≥ 85 years vs 3.1% in < 85 years; P = .80). Despite the higher baseline stroke risk, there was no difference at follow-up between the groups in the annualized stroke rate (0.8/100 patient-years in ≥ 85 years vs 1.3/100 patient-years in < 85 years; P = .649).ConclusionsLAAO in patients ≥ 85 years is safe and effective even though these patients are at high risk for embolic and hemorrhagic events. LAAO may be a reasonable alternative to oral anticoagulation in these patients.     

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.     

Clinical and Pharmacological Effects of Apixaban Dose Adjustment in the ARISTOTLE Trial

BackgroundIn the ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial, patients with atrial fibrillation and ≥2 dose-adjustment criteria (age ≥80 years, weight ≤60 kg, or creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl [133 μmol/l]) were randomized to receive apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or warfarin.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe the effects of apixaban dose adjustment on clinical and pharmacological outcomes.MethodsPatients receiving the correct dose of study drug were included (n = 18,073). The effect of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily versus warfarin on population pharmacokinetics, D-dimer, prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (PF1+2), and clinical outcomes was compared with the standard dose (5 mg twice daily).ResultsPatients receiving apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily exhibited lower apixaban exposure (median area under the concentration time curve at a steady state 2,720 ng/ml vs. 3,599 ng/ml; p < 0.0001) than those receiving the standard dose. In patients with ≥2 dose-adjustment criteria, reductions in D-dimers (p interaction = 0.20) and PF1+2 (p interaction = 0.55) were consistent with those observed in the standard-dose population. Patients with ≥2 dose-adjustment criteria (n = 751) were at higher risk for stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death than the standard-dose population (0 or 1 dose-adjustment criterion, n = 17,322). The effect of apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily versus warfarin in the ≥2 dose-adjustment criteria population was consistent with the standard dose in the reductions in stroke or systemic embolism (p interaction = 0.26), major bleeding (p interaction = 0.25), and death (p interaction = 0.72).ConclusionsApixaban drug concentrations were lower in patients receiving 2.5 mg twice daily compared with 5 mg twice daily. However, the effects of apixaban dose adjustment to 2.5 mg versus warfarin were consistent for coagulation biomarkers and clinical outcomes, providing reassuring data on efficacy and safety. (Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation [ARISTOTLE]; NCT00412984)     

Cierre de la orejuela izquierda por ictus pese a la anticoagulación oral (ictus resistente): resultados del registro Amplatzer Cardiac Plug

Introduction and objectivesDespite the efficacy of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, some patients continue to have a high residual risk and develop a stroke on OAC therapy (resistant stroke [RS]), and there is a lack of evidence on the management of these patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as secondary prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have experienced a stroke/transient ischemic attack despite OAC treatment.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug multicenter registry on 1047 consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing LAAO. Patientes with previous stroke on OAC therapy as indication for LAAO were identified and compared with patients with other indications.ResultsA total of 115 patients (11%) with RS were identified. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc and the HAS-BLED score were significantly higher in the RS group (respectively 5.5 ± 1.5 vs 4.3 ± 1.6; P < .001; 3.9 ± 1.3 vs 3.1 ± 1.2; P < .001). No significant differences were observed in periprocedural major safety events (7.8 vs 4.5%; P = .1). With a mean clinical follow-up of 16.2 ± 12.2 months, the observed annual stroke/transient ischemic attack rate for the RS group was 2.6% (65% risk reduction) and the observed annual major bleeding rate was 0% (100% risk reduction).ConclusionsPatients with RS undergoing LAAO showed similar safety outcomes to patients without RS, with a significant reduction in stroke/transient ischemic attack and major bleeding events during follow-up. Adequately powered controlled trials are needed to further investigate the use of LAAO in RS patients.     

Bleeding Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Compared With Long-Term Warfarin: A Pooled,Patient-Level Analysis of the WATCHMAN Randomized Trial Experience

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the relative risk of major bleeding with left atrial appendage (LAA) closure compared with long-term warfarin therapy.BackgroundLAA closure is an alternative approach to chronic oral anticoagulation for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsWe conducted a pooled, patient-level analysis of the 2 randomized clinical trials that compared WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) LAA closure with long-term warfarin therapy in AF.ResultsA total of 1,114 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. The overall rate of major bleeding from randomization to the end of follow-up was similar between treatment groups (3.5 events vs. 3.6 events per 100 patient-years; rate ratio [RR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 1.40; p = 0.84). LAA closure significantly reduced bleeding >7 days post-randomization (1.8 events vs. 3.6 events per 100 patient-years; RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.75; p = 0.001), with the difference emerging 6 months after randomization (1.0 events vs. 3.5 events per 100 patient-years; RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.49; p < 0.001), when patients assigned to LAA closure were able to discontinue adjunctive oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. The reduction in bleeding with LAA closure was directionally consistent across all patient subgroups.ConclusionsThere was no difference in the overall rate of major bleeding in patients assigned to LAA closure compared with extended warfarin therapy over 3 years of follow-up. However, LAA closure significantly reduced bleeding beyond the procedural period, particularly once adjunctive pharmacotherapy was discontinued. The favorable effect of LAA closure on long-term bleeding should be considered when selecting a stroke prevention strategy for patients with nonvalvular AF. (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation; NCT00129545; and Evaluation of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy [PREVAIL]; NCT01182441)     

Peridevice Leak After Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: An Analysis of the Amulet IDE Trial

BackgroundPeridevice leak (PDL) is a limitation of left atrial appendage occlusion.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence of and outcomes associated with PDL in the Amulet IDE (AMPLATZER? Amulet? LAA Occluder Trial) randomized controlled trial.MethodsPatients with atrial fibrillation at increased stroke risk were randomly assigned to undergo either Amulet (dual occlusive mechanism) or Watchman 2.5 (single occlusive mechanism) device implantation. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed at 45 days and 12 months postprocedure. Clinically significant PDL was defined as ≥3 mm. The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, and the secondary endpoint was stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 18-month cumulative event rates landmarked at day 45 postprocedure.ResultsA total of 1,593 patients underwent successful left atrial appendage occlusion and had an evaluable transesophageal echocardiographic studies at 45 days. The dual–occlusive mechanism device provided superior closure (defined as leak <3 mm) compared with the single–occlusive mechanism device at 45 days (88.9% vs 74.1%; P < 0.01) and 12 months (90.5% vs. 78.3%; P < 0.01). Through 18 months, PDL was associated with a higher, but not statistically significant, risk for the primary endpoint (3.6% vs 1.8%; adjusted HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 0.93-4.19; P = 0.07) and a statistically significantly higher risk for the secondary endpoint (8.1% vs. 4.7%; adjusted HR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.02-2.69; P = 0.04).ConclusionsThe dual–occlusive mechanism device provided superior closure compared with the single–occlusive mechanism device at both 45 days and 1 year postprocedure. PDL ≥3 mm was associated with a significantly increased 18-month risk for the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. Completeness of closure of the left atrial appendage has important implications for patient outcomes. (AMPLATZER? Amulet? LAA Occluder Trial [Amulet IDE]; NCT02879448)     

Ticagrelor vs Prasugrel in a Contemporary Real-World Cohort Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BackgroundPotent P2Y₁₂ agents such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly utilized across the clinical spectrum of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data supporting their use in a patient population inclusive of both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients.ObjectivesThe authors compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in a real-world contemporary PCI cohort.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI between 2014 and 2019 discharged on either prasugrel or ticagrelor were included from the prospectively collected institutional PCI registry. Primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularization at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 3,858 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor: n = 2,771; prasugrel: n = 1,087), and a majority (48.4%) underwent PCI in the context of CCS. Patients prescribed ticagrelor were more likely to be female, have a history of cerebrovascular disease, and have ACS presentation, while those receiving prasugrel were more likely to be White with a higher prevalence of prior revascularization. No difference in the risk of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor vs prasugrel: 3.3% vs 3.1%; HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.54-1.43; P = 0.59). Rates of target vessel revascularization were significantly lower in the ticagrelor cohort (9.3% vs 14.0%; adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55-0.91; P = 0.007) with no differences in stroke or bleeding. The results were consistent in patients with CCS (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54) and ACS (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54), without evidence of interaction (P = 0.37), and confirmed across multivariable adjustment and propensity score stratification analysis.ConclusionsIn this contemporary patient population undergoing PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar 1-year efficacy and safety.     

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.     

Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in the CABANA Trial

BackgroundThe CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial.MethodsThe authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post–90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach.ResultsMedian age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF.ConclusionsCatheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508)     

Association of Hospital Procedural Volume With Outcomes of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the association between percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedural volume and in-hospital outcomes.BackgroundSeveral studies have demonstrated an inverse volume-outcome relationship for patients undergoing invasive cardiac procedures. Whether a similar association exists for percutaneous LAAO remains unknown.MethodsPatients undergoing LAAO in 2017 were identified in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Hospitals were categorized into 3 groups on the basis of tertiles of annual procedural volume: low (5 to 15 cases/year), medium (17 to 31 cases/year), and high (32 to 211 cases/year). Multivariate hierarchical logistic regression and restricted cubic spline analyses were performed to examine the association of hospital LAAO volume and outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), defined as a composite of mortality, stroke or transient ischemic attack, bleeding or transfusion, vascular complications, myocardial infarction, systemic embolization, and pericardial effusion or tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis or surgery.ResultsThis study included 5,949 LAAO procedures performed across 196 hospitals with a median annual procedural volume of 41 (interquartile range: 25 to 67). Low-volume hospitals had higher rates of in-hospital MAE (9.5% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001), stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.1% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.049), and bleeding or transfusion (6.1% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.002) compared with high-volume hospitals. No differences were noted for other components of MAE and index length of stay. On multivariate analysis, higher procedural volume was associated with lower rates of in-hospital MAE, with an adjusted odds ratio for medium versus low volume of 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 1.04; p = 0.08) and for high versus low volume of 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.003).ConclusionsHigher hospital procedural volume is associated with better outcomes for LAAO procedures. Further studies are needed to determine if this relationship persists for long-term outcomes.     

5-Year Outcomes With Self-Expanding vs Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Small Annuli

BackgroundSelf-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THVs) are associated with better echocardiographic hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable THVs and are considered preferable in patients with small annuli.ObjectivesThis study sought to compare 5-year outcomes between self-expanding vs balloon-expandable THVs in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients with small annuli.MethodsConsecutive severe AS patients with an aortic valve annulus area <430 mm² who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either the CoreValve Evolut (Medtronic) or SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences) THV between 2012 and 2021 were enrolled from the Bern TAVI registry. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis was performed to account for baseline differences between groups.ResultsA total of 723 patients were included, and propensity score matching resulted in 171 pairs. Technical success was achieved in over 85% of both groups with no significant difference. Self-expanding THVs were associated with a lower transvalvular gradient (8.0 ± 4.8 mm Hg vs 12.5 ± 4.5 mm Hg; P < 0.001), a larger effective orifice area (1.81 ± 0.46 cm² vs 1.49 ± 0.42 cm²; P < 0.001), and a lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (19.7% vs 51.8%; P < 0.001) than balloon-expandable THVs. At 5 years, there were no significant differences in mortality (50.4% vs 39.6%; P = 0.269) between groups. Disabling stroke occurred more frequently in patients with a self-expanding THV than those with a balloon-expandable THV (6.6% vs 0.6%; P = 0.030). Similar results were obtained using inverse probability of treatment weighting in the Bern TAVI registry and the nationwide Swiss TAVI registry.ConclusionsThe echocardiographic hemodynamic advantage of self-expanding THVs was not associated with better clinical outcomes compared with balloon-expandable THVs up to 5 years in patients with small annuli. (Swiss TAVI Registry; NCT01368250)     

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.     

3-Year Outcomes After 2-Stent With Provisional Stenting for Complex Bifurcation Lesions Defined by DEFINITION Criteria

BackgroundThe multicenter and randomized DEFINITION II (Two-Stent vs Provisional Stenting Techniques for Patients With Complex Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial showed less 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) after a 2-stent approach for complex coronary bifurcation lesions compared with provisional stenting (PS). The authors report the 3-year clinical outcome of the DEFINITION II trial.ObjectivesThe aim of the present study was to investigate the difference in TLF at 3 years after a planned 2-stent approach vs PS for complex coronary bifurcation lesions stratified by DEFINITION (Definitions and Impact of Complex Bifurcation Lesions on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents) criteria.MethodsA total of 653 patients with complex coronary bifurcation lesions were randomly assigned to either the 2-stent group or the PS group in the DEFINITION II trial and were followed for 3 years. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of TLF at 3 years. Stent thrombosis was the safety endpoint.ResultsAt 3 years, TLF had occurred in 52 patients (16.0%) in the PS group and in 34 (10.4%) patients in the 2-stent group (HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41-0.97; P = 0.035), driven mainly by increased target vessel myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.7%; HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23-0.89; P = 0.022) and target lesion revascularization (8.3% vs 4.3%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.26-0.96; P = 0.038). There was no difference in TLF between the 2 groups between year 1 and year 3.ConclusionsFor patients with complex coronary bifurcations who reach 1-year postprocedure without experiencing endpoint events, there is still a risk for future events. The type of procedure performed initially is no longer a future event risk determinant. (Two-Stent vs Provisional Stenting Techniques for Patients With Complex Coronary Bifurcation Lesions; NCT02284750)     

Randomized,Double-Blind Comparison of Half-Dose Versus Full-Dose Edoxaban in 14,014 Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BackgroundIn the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, the lower dose edoxaban regimen (LDER) and the higher dose edoxaban regimen (HDER) were noninferior to well-managed warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.ObjectivesThe objective of the present analysis of the ENGAGE AF TIMI-48 trial was to comprehensively compare the net clinical outcome (NCO) of LDER (30 mg once daily, dose reduced to 15 mg in selective patients) versus HDER (60 mg once daily, dose reduced to 30 mg in selective patients).MethodsThis study performed a pre-specified analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, comparing patients on LDER versus HDER.ResultsThe pre-defined primary NCO (stroke/systemic embolism [SEE], major bleeding, death) was less frequent with LDER (7.26% vs. 8.01%; hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.84 to 0.98; p = 0.014). The secondary (disabling stroke, life-threatening bleeding, or all-cause mortality) and tertiary pre-defined NCOs (stroke, SEE, life-threatening bleeding, or all-cause mortality) were similar between the 2 dosing regimens. Patients randomized to LDER versus HDER had a significantly higher risk of stroke/SEE (2.04% vs. 1.56%; hazard ratio: 1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.12 to 1.52; p < 0.001). Conversely, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and life-threatening bleeding occurred significantly less frequently with LDER compared with those of HDER. These findings were supported by multiple pharmacokinetic findings.ConclusionsIn the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, the primary NCO was reduced with LDER versus HDER, whereas the secondary and tertiary NCOs were similar between the 2 dosing regimens. These results may aid physicians in evidence-based individualization of edoxaban dosing. However, the approved HDER remains the standard therapy among the available edoxaban dosing regimens for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48 [ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48]; NCT00781391)     

The Impact of CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED Scores on Clinical Outcomes in the Amplatzer Amulet Study

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores on ischemic and bleeding events of patients enrolled in the Amplatzer Amulet Observational Study.BackgroundBaseline CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores have been validated in atrial fibrillation patients to guide about anticoagulation but not in patients treated by left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).MethodsSubjects were stratified according to CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. Clinical outcomes were collected through 2 years and adjudicated by an independent committee.ResultsSubjects were considered at low (n = 156), moderate (n = 715), and high (n = 215) risk for ischemic stroke, corresponding to CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores of <3, 3 to 5, and ≥6, respectively. The annual rates of ischemic stroke were 1.1%, 2.0%, and 3.5%, respectively. When compared with the predicted rate, LAAO reduced the risk of ischemic stroke by 56%, 69%, and 68%. Device-related thrombus occurred in 0.7%, 1.5%, and 3.0% of subjects at low, moderate, and high risk for ischemic stroke, respectively. The HAS-BLED score was ≤3 in 629 subjects and >3 in 456 subjects, respectively. Non-peri-procedural major bleeding was reduced by 11% and 9% compared with predicted rates in the low and high bleeding risk groups, respectively.ConclusionsLAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet reduced the risk of ischemic stroke compared with the predicted rate, with a greater magnitude among patients at high thromboembolic risk without increasing the bleeding risk. (Amplatzer™Amulet™ Post-Market Study [Amulet™PMS]; NCT02447081)     

1-Year Outcomes of Thromboendarterectomy vs Endovascular Therapy for Common Femoral Artery Lesions: CAULIFLOWER Study Results

BackgroundThromboendarterectomy (TEA) is the gold-standard treatment for common femoral artery (CFA). However, because of its low invasiveness and short hospitalization duration, CFA endovascular therapy (EVT) is performed in real-world practice. However, the clinical benefits and appropriate target population for CFA EVT remain unclear.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to compare the clinical outcomes of TEA with those of EVT in patients with symptomatic CFA diseases and to identify the adequate target population for CFA EVT.MethodsA total of 1,193 consecutive patients who underwent EVT (n = 761) or TEA (n = 432) for CFA were identified and retrospectively reviewed from a registry of 66 institutions. The primary outcome was 1-year primary patency compared between EVT and TEA using propensity score matching. An interaction analysis was performed to explore the appropriate target population for CFA EVT.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the 1-year primary patency rate was significantly higher in the TEA group (82.3% vs 96.6%; P < 0.001), whereas perioperative complications were more frequently observed in the TEA group (P = 0.047). Nonambulatory status attenuated the HR of EVT vs TEA for restenosis risk (P = 0.021), whereas the presence of nodular calcification significantly increased the HR (P = 0.040). In the EVT subgroup analysis for restenosis risk, stent use showed the lowest HR compared with plain balloon angioplasty and drug-coated balloon angioplasty (P < 0.001).ConclusionsTEA showed superior 1-year patency compared with EVT in a nationwide multicenter study. Nonambulatory status attenuated the superiority, whereas the presence of nodular calcification enhanced it.