Antithrombotic therapy and cardiovascular outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients without indications for chronic oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: As the antithrombotic regimen that may best prevent ischaemic complications along with the lowest bleeding risk offset following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains unclear, we aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens in patients without having an indication for chronic oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a PROSPERO-registered (CRD42021247924) systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating post-TAVI antithrombotic regimens up to April 2022. We estimated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) using a random-effects model in a frequentist pairwise and network metanalytic approach. We included seven studies comprising 4006 patients with a mean weighted follow-up of 12.9 months. Risk of all-cause death was significantly reduced with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compared with low-dose rivaroxaban + 3-month single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41-0.88), while no significant reduction was observed with SAPT vs. DAPT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67-1.58) and SAPT and DAPT compared with apixaban or edoxaban (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32-1.14 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-1.02, respectively). SAPT was associated with a significant reduction of life-threatening, disabling, or major bleeding compared with DAPT (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.70), apixaban or edoxaban alone (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.79), and low-dose rivaroxaban + 3-month SAPT (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16-0.57). There were no differences between the various regimens with respect to myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism. CONCLUSION: Following TAVI in patients without an indication for chronic oral anticoagulant, SAPT more than halved the risk of bleeding compared with DAPT and direct oral anticoagulant-based regimens without significant ischaemic offset.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who are candidates for a bioprosthesis across the entire spectrum of risk. However, TAVR carries a risk for thrombotic and bleeding events, underscoring the importance of defining the optimal adjuvant antithrombotic regimen. Antithrombotic considerations are convoluted by the fact that many patients undergoing TAVR are generally elderly and present with multiple comorbidities, including conditions that may require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) (eg, atrial fibrillation) and antiplatelet therapy (eg, coronary artery disease). After TAVR among patients without baseline indications for OAC, recent data suggest dual-antiplatelet therapy to be associated with an increased risk for bleeding events, particularly early postprocedure, compared with single-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. Concerns surrounding the potential for thrombotic complications have raised the hypothesis of adjunctive use of OAC for patients with no baseline indications for anticoagulation. Although effective in modulating thrombus formation at the valve level, the bleeding hazard has shown to be unacceptably high, and the net benefit of combining antiplatelet and OAC therapy is unproven. For patients with indications for the use of long-term OAC, such as those with atrial fibrillation, the adjunctive use of antiplatelet therapy increases bleeding. Whether direct oral anticoagulant agents achieve better outcomes than vitamin K antagonists remains under investigation. Overall, single-antiplatelet therapy and OAC appear to be reasonable strategies in patients without and with indications for concurrent anticoagulation. The aim of the present review is to appraise the current published research and recommendations surrounding the management of antithrombotic therapy after TAVR, with perspectives on evolving paradigms and ongoing trials.

Reduced Rivaroxaban Dose Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: ADRIFT a Randomized Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) exposes to the risk of device thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation who frequently have a contraindication to full anticoagulation. Thereby, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is usually preferred. No randomized study has evaluated nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant after LAAC, and we decided to evaluate the efficacy and safety of reduced doses of rivaroxaban after LAAC. METHODS: ADRIFT (Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Rivaroxaban in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With Left Atrial Appendage Closure) is a multicenter, phase IIb study, which randomized 105 patients after successful LAAC to either rivaroxaban 10 mg (R10, n=37), rivaroxaban 15 mg (R15, n=35), or DAPT with aspirin 75 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg (n=33). The primary end point was thrombin generation (prothrombin fragments 1+2) measured 2 to 4 hours after drug intake, 10 days after treatment initiation. Thrombin-antithrombin complex, D-dimers, rivaroxaban concentrations were also measured at 10 days and 3 months. Clinical end points were evaluated at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: The primary end point was reduced with R10 (179 pmol/L [interquartile range (IQR), 129-273], P<0.0001) and R15 (163 pmol/L [IQR, 112-231], P<0.0001) as compared with DAPT (322 pmol/L [IQR, 218-528]). We observed no significant reduction of the primary end point between R10 and R15 while rivaroxaban concentrations increased significantly from 184 ng/mL (IQR, 127-290) with R10 to 274 ng/mL (IQR, 192-377) with R15, P<0.0001. Thrombin-antithrombin complex and D-dimers were numerically lower with both rivaroxaban doses than with DAPT. These findings were all confirmed at 3 months. The clinical end points were not different between groups. A device thrombosis was noted in 2 patients assigned to DAPT. CONCLUSIONS: Thrombin generation measured after LAAC was lower in patients treated by reduced rivaroxaban doses than DAPT, supporting an alternative to the antithrombotic regimens currently used after LAAC and deserves further evaluation in larger studies. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03273322.

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

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

Clinically significant bleeding with low-dose rivaroxaban versus aspirin, in addition to P2Y12 inhibition, in acute coronary syndromes (GEMINI-ACS-1): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, is the standard antithrombotic treatment following acute coronary syndromes. The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban reduced mortality and ischaemic events when added to DAPT, but caused increased bleeding. The safety of a dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban (in place of aspirin) with a P2Y12 inhibitor has not been assesssed in acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to assess rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily versus aspirin 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patients with acute coronary syndromes started within 10 days after presentation and continued for 6-12 months. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial (GEMINI-ACS-1) done at 371 clinical centres in 21 countries, eligible patients were older than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with positive cardiac biomarkers and either ischaemic electrocardiographic changes or an atherosclerotic culprit lesion identified during angiography. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) within 10 days after admission for the index acute coronary syndromes event to either aspirin or rivaroxaban based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks with size of four and was stratified based on the background P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisation. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Patients received a minimum of 180 days of double-blind treatment with rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily or aspirin 100 mg daily. The choice of clopidogrel or ticagrelor during trial conduct was not randomised and was based on investigator preference. The primary endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) clinically significant bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; major, minor, or requiring medical attention) up to day 390. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02293395. FINDINGS: Between April 22, 2015, and Oct 14, 2016, 3037 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned; 1518 to receive aspirin and 1519 to receive rivaroxaban. 1704 patients (56%) were in the ticagrelor and 1333 (44%) in the clopidogrel strata. Median duration of treatment was 291 days (IQR 239-354). TIMI non-CABG clinically significant bleeding was similar with rivaroxaban versus aspirin therapy (total 154 patients [5%]; 80 participants [5%] of 1519 vs 74 participants [5%] of 1518; HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·80-1·50]; p=0·5840). INTERPRETATION: A dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban with a P2Y12 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes had similar risk of clinically significant bleeding as aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. A larger, adequately powered trial would be required to definitively assess the efficacy and safety of this approach. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development and Bayer AG.

Prasugrel compared with high-dose clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome. The randomised, double-blind ACAPULCO study.

Compared with the approved dose regimen of clopidogrel (300-mg loading dose [LD], 75-mg maintenance dose [MD]), prasugrel has been demonstrated to reduce ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In ACS, antiplatelet effects of a prasugrel MD regimen have not been previously compared with either a higher clopidogrel MD or after switching from a higher clopidogrel LD. The objective of this study was to evaluate the antiplatelet effect of a prasugrel 10-mg MD versus a clopidogrel 150-mg MD in patients with ACS who had received a clopidogrel 900-mg LD. Patients with non-ST elevation ACS, treated with aspirin and a clopidogrel 900-mg LD, were randomised within 24 hours post-LD to receive a prasugrel 10-mg or clopidogrel 150-mg MD. After 14 days of the initial MD, subjects switched to the alternative treatment for 14 days. The primary endpoint compared maximum platelet aggregation (MPA, 20 microM adenosine diphosphate [ADP]) between prasugrel and clopidogrel MDs for both periods. Responder analyses between treatments were performed using several platelet-function methods. Of 56 randomised subjects, 37 underwent PCI. MPA was 26.2% for prasugrel 10 mg and 39.1% for clopidogrel 150 mg (p<0.001). The prasugrel MD regimen reduced MPA from the post-900-mg LD level (41.2% to 29.1%, p=0.003). Poor response ranged from 0% to 6% for prasugrel 10 mg and 4% to 34% for clopidogrel 150 mg. Thus, in ACS patients a prasugrel 10-mg MD regimen resulted in significantly greater platelet inhibition than clopidogrel at twice its approved MD or a 900-mg LD.