Impact of percutaneous closure device type on vascular and bleeding complications after TAVR: A post hoc analysis from the BRAVO-3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Prostar XL (PS) and ProGlide (PG) are common vascular closure devices (VCD) used in TAVR via transfemoral vascular approach. The impact of these VCD on vascular and bleeding complications remains unclear. METHODS: The BRAVO-3 trial randomized 802 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. We stratified patients according to type of VCD used and examined the 30-day incidence of major or minor vascular complications, major bleeding (BARC ≥3b), AKI and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction or stroke). RESULTS: A total of 746 (93%) patients were treated with either PS (n = 352, 47%) or PG (n = 394, 53%) VCD, without significant differences in successful deployment rate (PS 322 [91.2%] vs. PG 373 [94.2%] respectively, p = .20). PG was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major or minor vascular complications, compared to PS (adjusted OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37-0.80; p < .01). Rates of acute kidney injury were also lower with the PG device. There was no significant difference between bleeding, MACCE, and death. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to PS, the PG VCD was associated with a lower rate of major or minor vascular complications and lower rates of AKI after transfemoral TAVR.

Bivalirudin infusion to reduce ventricular infarction: the open-label, randomised Bivalirudin Infusion for Ventricular InfArction Limitation (BIVAL) study.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to investigate whether bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) reduces infarct size (IS) for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in large acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicentre open-label trial randomised 78 patients undergoing PPCI for large AMI to bivalirudin or UFH. The primary endpoint was IS, assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) five days after PPCI. Secondary endpoints included index of microcirculatory resistance (IMR), CMR-assessed microvascular obstruction (MVO) and ejection fraction, and biomarkers for thrombin activity and cell injury. No difference was observed in mean IS at five days (25.0±19.7 g for bivalirudin vs. 27.1±20.7 g for UFH; p=0.75). Early MVO was numerically lower with bivalirudin (5.3±5.8 g vs. 7.7±6.3 g; p=0.17), with no significant difference in ejection fraction at 90 days (54.6±12.0% vs. 49.1±12.1%; p=0.11). In the biomarkers, thrombin-antithrombin complexes were reduced by 4.8 ug/L over the first day for bivalirudin versus an increase of 1.9 ug/L in the heparin arm (p=0.0003). Acute IMR was lower (43.5±21.6 vs. 68.7±35.8 mmHg×s, respectively; p=0.014). In a planned interim analysis, an approximate 11% reduction in IS was observed with bivalirudin; the trial was discontinued for futility. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not achieve its primary endpoint of significant infarct size reduction in PPCI by prolonged bivalirudin infusion compared to UFH, even though complete thrombin inhibition was achieved in the acute phase, with a lower myocardial microcirculation resistance at the end of the procedure.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS: Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).