Treatment of acute pulmonary embolism after catheter-directed thrombolysis with dabigatran vs warfarin: Results of a multicenter randomized RE-SPIRE trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic therapy is effective method in the high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE) treatment. Reduced-dose thrombolysis (RDT) plus oral anticoagulation therapy is effective and safe method in the moderate and severe PE treatment. It is leading to good early and intermediate-term outcomes. In the RE-COVER and RE-COVER II studies, dabigatran showed similar effectiveness as warfarin in the treatment of acute PE. Dabigatran leads to fewer hemorrhagic complications and is not inferior in efficacy to warfarin in the prevention of PE after mechanical fragmentation and RDT (catheter-directed treatment [CDT]+RDT) in patients with high and intermediate to high PE risk. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety (incidence of clinically significant recurrence of venous thromboembolic complications and deaths) during a 6-month course of treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in patients with high and intermediate to high acute PE risk after endovascular mechanical thrombus fragmentation procedure with RDT (CDT+RDT). METHODS: The RE-SPIRE is a prospective, multicenter randomized double-arm study. Over a 5-year period, 66 consecutive patients with symptomatic high and intermediate to high PE risk after endovascular mechanical thrombus fragmentation procedure with RDT (CDT+RDT) were randomized into two groups within the next 48 hours. The first group continued treatment with dabigatran 150 mg twice a day for 6 months; the second group continued treatment with warfarin under the control of international normalized ratio (2.0-3.0) for 6 months. Both groups received low molecular weight heparins for 2 days after surgery. Then, group 1 continued to receive low molecular-weight-heparin for 5 to 7 days, followed by a switch to dabigatran at a dosage of 150 mg two times a day. Group 2 received both low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin up to an international normalized ratio of >2.0, followed by heparin withdrawal. The follow-up period was 6 months. RESULTS: There were 63 patients who completed the study (32 in the dabigatran group and 31 in the warfarin group). In both groups, there was a statistically significant decrease in the mean pulmonary artery pressure. The mean pulmonary artery pressure at the 6-month follow-up after surgery was 24 mm Hg (interquartile range, 20.3-29.25 mm Hg) in the dabigatran group and 23 mm Hg (interquartile range, 20.0-26.3 mm Hg) in the warfarin group. The groups did not differ statistically in the deep vein thrombosis dynamics. Partial recanalization occurred in 52.0% vs 73.1% in the dabigatran and warfarin groups, respectively (P = .15). Complete recanalization occurred in 28.0% vs 19.2% in the dabigatran and warfarin groups, respectively (P = .56). The groups did not differ in the frequency of major bleeding events according to the International Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (0% vs 3.2% in the dabigatran and warfarin groups, respectively; P = 1.00). However, there were more nonmajor bleeding events in the warfarin group than in the dabigatran group (16.1% vs 0%, respectively; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that dabigatran is comparable in effectiveness to warfarin. Dabigatran has greater safety in comparison with warfarin in the occurrence of all cases of bleeding in the postoperative and long-term periods. Thus, dabigatran may be recommended for the treatment and prevention of PE after CDT with RDT in patients with high and intermediate to high PE risk.

Carotid Endarterectomy with Autoarterial Remodeling of Bifurcation of the Common Carotid Artery and Carotid Endarterectomy with Patch Closure: Comparison of Methods.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of our research were to identify whether the new method of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with autoarterial remodeling of bifurcation of the common carotid artery (ARBCCA) influences daily parameters of blood pressure and heart rate (HR) while monitoring them on a daily basis and to assess the efficacy of the suggested method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a prospective randomized comparative study. The first group (n = 100) included patients that underwent ARBCCA, the second group (n = 100) included patients that underwent "classic" CEA with xenopericardial patch closure. Diurnal Holter recording of blood pressure and (HR) was performed before and after the surgical treatment in both groups. RESULTS: Surgical treatment in both groups leads to an increase of HR, arterial hypertension time index by systolic blood pressure, and arterial hypertension time index by diastolic arterial blood pressure. The damage of carotid artery bulb increases sympathetic innervation and causes dysregulation of the baroreceptor mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we did not reveal a significant difference in the incidence of postoperative hypertension and the dependence of HR on the choice of surgical technique. Thus, the proposed ARBCCA method does not lead to an increased risk of pre-existing arterial hypertension development. A significant difference is found out on the parameter of the clamping time of carotid arteries in favor to ARBCCA group. Another advantage of the suggested technique is the number of restenosis greater than 50% during the 2-year follow-up (4 [4%] cases (ARBCCA group) versus 12 [12%] cases ["classic" CEA], respectively, P = .037).