Aspirin with or without Clopidogrel after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND The effect of single as compared with dual antiplatelet treatment on bleeding and thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) in patients who do not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation has not been well studied. METHODS In a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned a subgroup of patients who were undergoing TAVI and did not have an indication for long-term anticoagulation, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive aspirin alone or aspirin plus clopidogrel for 3 months. The two primary outcomes were all bleeding (including minor, major, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding) and non-procedure-related bleeding over a period of 12 months. Most bleeding at the TAVI puncture site was counted as non-procedure-related. The two secondary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-procedure-related bleeding, stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 1) and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, ischemic stroke, or myocardial infarction (secondary composite 2) at 1 year, with both outcomes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superiority. RESULTS A total of 331 patients were assigned to receive aspirin alone and 334 were assigned to receive aspirin plus clopidogrel. A bleeding event occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) receiving aspirin alone and in 89 (26.6%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (risk ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.77; P=0.001). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 50 patients (15.1%) and 83 patients (24.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.83; P=0.005). A secondary composite 1 event occurred in 76 patients (23.0%) receiving aspirin alone and in 104 (31.1%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (difference, −8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −14.9 to −1.5; P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.74; 95% CI for superiority, 0.57 to 0.95; P=0.04). A secondary composite 2 event occurred in 32 patients (9.7%) and 33 patients (9.9%), respectively (difference, −0.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, −4.7 to 4.3; P=0.004; risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI for superiority, 0.62 to 1.55; P=0.93). A total of 44 patients (13.3%) and 32 (9.6%), respectively, received oral anticoagulation during the trial. CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing TAVI who did not have an indication for oral anticoagulation, the incidence of bleeding and the composite of bleeding or thromboembolic events at 1 year were significantly less frequent with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel administered for 3 months

Aspirin Alone Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation:A Systematic Review and Patient-Level Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation without an indication for oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether single or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is necessary to minimize both the bleeding and thromboembolic risk. In this patient‐level meta‐analysis, we further investigate the effect of aspirin alone compared with DAPT for preventing both thromboembolic and bleeding events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a systematic review of all available randomized controlled trials comparing aspirin with DAPT. In total, 1086 patients were included across 4 eligible trials. The primary outcomes were the composite of all‐cause mortality, major or life‐threatening bleeding, stroke or myocardial infarction (first composite outcome), and the same composite excluding bleeding (second composite outcome), both tested at 30 days and 3 months. The first composite outcome occurred significantly less in the aspirin‐alone group at 30 days (10.3% versus 14.7%, odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46–0.97, P=0.034) and 3 months (11.0% versus 16.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47–0.94, P=0.02), compared with the DAPT group. The second composite outcome occurred in 5.5% and 6.6% at 30 days (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50–1.38, P=0.47) and in 6.9% and 8.5% at 3 months in the aspirin‐alone group compared with the DAPT group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52–1.29, P=0.39), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation, aspirin alone significantly reduced the composite of thromboembolic and bleeding events, and does not increase the composite of thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, compared with DAPT

Unraveling the Effect of a Potentiating Anti-Factor H Antibody on Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome-Associated Factor H Variants

The complement system plays an important role in our innate immune system. Complement activation results in clearance of pathogens, immune complex, and apoptotic cells. The host is protected from complement-mediated damage by several complement regulators. Factor H (FH) is the most important fluid-phase regulator of the alternative pathway of the complement system. Heterozygous mutations in FH are associated with complement-related diseases such as atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) and age-related macular degeneration. We recently described an agonistic anti-FH mAb that can potentiate the regulatory function of FH. This Ab could serve as a potential new drug for aHUS patients and alternative to C5 blockade by eculizumab. However, it is unclear whether this Ab can potentiate FH mutant variants in addition to wild-type (WT) FH. In this study, the functionality and potential of the agonistic Ab in the context of pathogenic aHUS-related FH mutant proteins was investigated. The binding affinity of recombinant WT FH and the FH variants, W1183L, V1197A, R1210C, and G1194D to C3b was increased upon addition of the potentiating Ab and similarly, the decay-accelerating activity of all mutants is increased. The potentiating anti-FH Ab is able to restore the surface regulatory function of most of the tested FH mutants to WT FH levels on a human HAP-1 cell line and on sheep erythrocytes. In conclusion, our potentiating anti-FH is broadly active and able to enhance both WT FH function as well as most aHUS-associated FH variants tested in this study

Left ventricular size predicts clinical benefit after percutaneous mitral valve repair for secondary mitral regurgitation : A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Background: The benefit of percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) in patients with secondary MR is still debated. We aimed to compare the outcome of PMVR with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) and to assess the role of potential effect modifiers. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 7 non-randomized observational studies (nROS). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled through inverse variance random-effects model to compute the summary effect size for all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization. Subgroup and meta-regression analysis were also performed. Results: An overall population of 3118 individuals (67% men; mean age, 73 years) was included: 1775 PMVR+OMT and 1343 OMT patients, with mean follow-up of 24 ± 15 months. PMVR+OMT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.68–0.87), cardiovascular death (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34–0.89) and cardiac-related hospitalization (HR:0.77; 95% CI: 0.64–0.92). Meta-regression analysis showed that larger left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) portends higher risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization after PMVR (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusions: This study-level meta-analysis shows that PMVR+OMT is associated with reduced all-cause death, cardiovascular death and cardiac-related hospitalization when compared with OMT alone in secondary MR. LVEDVI is a predictive marker of efficacy, as patients with smaller LVEDVI have been shown to derive the largest benefit from PMVR

Sex Differences in Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement:A POPular TAVI Subanalysis

Background: Stroke and bleeding are complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A higher incidence of bleeding and stroke has been reported in women, but the role of antithrombotic management pre- and post-TAVR has not been studied.Objectives: The study sought to compare bleeding and ischemic complications after TAVR between women and men stratified by antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant (OAC) regimen.Methods: The POPular TAVI (Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation) trial was a randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that monotherapy with aspirin or OAC after TAVR is safer than the addition of clopidogrel. The primary endpoints of interest of this post hoc subanalysis were: 1) all bleeding; and 2) a composite of ischemic events consisting of stroke and myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints were: 1) nonprocedural bleeding; 2) major or life-threatening bleeding; 3) minor bleeding; 4) stroke; 5) myocardial infarction; and 6) all-cause death.Results: A total of 978 patients (466 [47.6%] women) were included in this study. All bleeding and the composite of myocardial infarction and stroke rates were similar between sexes (all bleeding: 106 [22.8%] women vs 121 [23.6%] men; P = 0.815; ischemic events: 26 [5.6%] vs 36 [7.0%]; P = 0.429). However, major or life-threatening bleeding occurred more often in women (58 [12.5%]) vs men (38 [7.4%]) (P = 0.011), most of which were access site bleedings. The use of aspirin pre- and post-TAVR increased major or life-threatening bleeding in women but not in men.Conclusions: After TAVR, overall bleeding and ischemic outcomes were similar between women and men. However, women had more major or life-threatening bleedings, especially those receiving aspirin pre- and post-TAVR.</p

Breast Implant Prevalence in the Dutch Female Population Assessed by Chest Radiographs

BACKGROUND: Breast implant-related health problems are a subject of fierce debate. Reliable population-based estimates of implant prevalence rates are not available, however, due to a lack of historical registries and incomplete sales data, precluding absolute risk assessments. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the methodology of a novel procedure to determine Dutch breast implant prevalence based on the evaluation of routine chest radiographs. METHODS: The validity of the new method was first examined in a separate study. Eight reviewers examined a series of 180 chest radiographs with (n = 60) or without (n = 120) a breast implant confirmed by a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. After a consensus meeting with best-performing expert reviewers, we reviewed 3000 chest radiographs of women aged 20 to 70 years in 2 large regional hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015. To calculate the national breast implant prevalence, regional prevalence variations were corrected utilizing the National Breast Cancer Screening Program. RESULTS: Eight reviewers scored with a median sensitivity of 71.7% (range, 41.7%-85.0%) and a median specificity of 94.6% (range, 73.4%-97.5%). After a consensus meeting and a reevaluation by best-performing expert reviewers, sensitivity was 79.9% and specificity was 99.2%. The estimated national prevalence of breast implants among women between 20 and 70 years was 3.0%, ranging from 1.7% at 21 to 30 years to 3.9% between 51 and 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The novel method in this study was validated with a high sensitivity and specificity, resulting in accurate prevalence estimates and providing the opportunity to conduct absolute risk assessment studies on the health consequences of breast implants