A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns. RESULTS: After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Local and general anaesthesia do not influence outcome of transfemoral aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: There is great variability for the type of anaesthesia used during TAVI, with no clear consensus coming from comparative studies or guidelines. We sought to detect regional differences in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Europe and to evaluate the relationship between type of anaesthesia and in-hospital and 1 year outcome. METHODS: Between January 2011 and May 2012 the Sentinel European TAVI Pilot Registry enrolled 2807 patients treated via a transfemoral approach using either local (LA-group, 1095 patients, 39%) or general anaesthesia (GA-group, 1712 patients, 61%). RESULTS: A wide variation in LA use was evident amongst the 10 participating countries. The use of LA has increased over time (from a mean of 37.5% of procedures in the first year, to 57% in last 6 months, p<0.01). MI, major stroke as well as in-hospital death rate (7.0% LA vs 5.3% GA, p=0.053) had a similar incidence between groups, confirmed in multivariate regression analysis after adjusting for confounders. Dividing our population in tertiles according to the Log-EuroSCORE we found similar mortality under LA, whilst mortality was higher in the highest risk tertile under GA. Survival at 1 year, compared by Kaplan-Meier analysis, was similar between groups (log-rank: p=0.1505). CONCLUSIONS: Selection of anaesthesia appears to be more influenced by national practice and operator preference than patient characteristics. In the absence of an observed difference in outcomes for either approach, there is no compelling argument to suggest that operators and centres should change their anaesthetic practice.

Clinical outcomes and safety of transfemoral aortic valve implantation under general versus local anesthesia: subanalysis of the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 registry.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) performed under local anesthesia (LA) is becoming increasingly common. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes in patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVI under general anesthesia (GA) and LA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 2326 patients in the French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 (FRANCE 2) registry who underwent transfemoral-TAVI were analyzed. During the study period, the percentage of LA procedures increased gradually from 14% in January 2010 to 59% in October 2011. The clinical outcomes for GA (n=1377) and LA (n=949) were compared. Numerous baseline characteristics differed between the 2 groups, and the use of transesophageal echocardiographic guidance was more common in GA than in LA (76.3% versus 16.9%; P<0.001). Device success and cumulative 30-day survival rates were similar in the 2 groups (97.6% versus 97.0%; P=0.41 and 91.6% versus 91.3%; P=0.69, respectively), whereas the incidence of postprocedural aortic regurgitation≥mild was significantly lower in GA than in LA (15.0% versus 19.1%; P=0.015). The groups were also analyzed using a propensity-matching model, including transesophageal echocardiographic usage (GA [n=401] versus LA [n=401]). This model indicated that there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the rates of 30-day survival (GA [91.4%] versus LA [89.3%]; P=0.27] and postprocedural aortic regurgitation≥mild (GA [12.7%] versus LA [16.2%]; P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The less invasive transfemoral-TAVI under LA is preferred in clinical settings and seems to be acceptable; however, the higher incidence of postprocedural aortic regurgitation is emphasized. Therapeutic efforts should be made to reduce such complications during transfemoral-TAVI under LA.

Implementation of primary angioplasty in Europe: stent for life initiative progress report.

AIMS: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the recommended treatment for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite substantial evidence of its effectiveness, a 2007 study reported that only 40-45% of European STEMI patients were treated with PPCI, with large variations in treatment availability between countries. In 2008, the Stent for Life (SFL) initiative was launched by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and EuroPCR in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care and country-specific national cardiac societies. The aim is to promote the prioritisation of percutaneous coronary intervention treatment towards those who will benefit most, namely STEMI patients. The following countries are currently participating: Bulgaria, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain and Turkey. METHODS AND RESULTS: Since SFL was launched, several activities have been initiated in the participating countries. Preliminary reports suggest that major increases have been seen in the numbers of PPCI performed, with some countries reporting very significant increases in PPCI use from 2008-2010. Improvements in STEMI mortality rates have also been observed. CONCLUSIONS: This report summarises the progress of the SFL initiative in the 10 target countries.