Uninterrupted anticoagulation with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: Lessons learned from randomized trials

Catheter ablation has been established as a rhythm control strategy in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have failed or wish to avoid anti-arrhythmic drugs. Uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) peri-ablation is associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic and bleeding complications as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation and bridging heparin. However, a substantial portion of patients with AF are treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Herein, we perform an in-depth review and comparison of three recent randomized trials of uninterrupted oral anticoagulation with NOACs vs VKAs in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation. Furthermore, we report pooled results of these randomized trials. The pooled incidence of major bleeding was significantly lower with NOACs as compared to VKAs (2% vs 4.9%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 0.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.16-0.99). Similarly, cardiac tamponade was also reduced in the NOAC group (0.4% vs 1.5%; OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.07-0.97). Thromboembolic complications were not significantly different between groups. Overall, these findings support the 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement's class I recommendation for uninterrupted NOAC use in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation

Uninterrupted Dabigatran versus Warfarin for Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is typically performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin or interrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy. Uninterrupted anticoagulation with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, such as dabigatran, may be safer; however, controlled data are lacking. We investigated the safety of uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled trial with blinded adjudicated end-point assessments, we randomly assigned patients scheduled for catheter ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to receive either dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Ablation was performed after 4 to 8 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation, which was continued during and for 8 weeks after ablation. The primary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation; secondary end points included thromboembolic and other bleeding events. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 704 patients across 104 sites; 635 patients underwent ablation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. The incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation was lower with dabigatran than with warfarin (5 patients [1.6%] vs. 22 patients [6.9%]; absolute risk difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -2.2; P<0.001). Dabigatran was associated with fewer periprocedural pericardial tamponades and groin hematomas than warfarin. The two treatment groups had a similar incidence of minor bleeding events. One thromboembolic event occurred in the warfarin group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation with uninterrupted dabigatran was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfarin. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-CIRCUIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02348723 .)

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute heart failure:Findings from EMPULSE

Aims: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751).Methods and results: In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93–1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30–1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47–1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (&lt;6%) irrespective of MRA use.Conclusions: In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF.</p

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use and the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients admitted for acute heart failure:Findings from EMPULSE

Aims: In patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF) empagliflozin produced greater clinical benefit than placebo. Many patients with AHF are treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). The interplay between empagliflozin and MRAs in AHF is yet to be explored. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin versus placebo according to MRA use at baseline in the EMPULSE trial (NCT04157751).Methods and results: In this analysis all comparisons were performed between empagliflozin and placebo, stratified by baseline MRA use. The primary outcome included all-cause death, heart failure events, and a ≥5 point difference in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) total symptom score at 90 days, assessed using the win ratio (WR). First heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was a secondary outcome. From the 530 patients randomized, 276 (52%) were receiving MRAs at baseline. MRA users were younger, had lower ejection fraction, better renal function, and higher KCCQ scores. The primary outcome showed benefit of empagliflozin irrespective of baseline MRA use (WR 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.97 and WR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93–1.73 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.52). The effect of empagliflozin on first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death was not modified by MRA use (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% CI 0.30–1.11 and HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47–1.52 in MRA users and non-users, respectively; interaction p = 0.39). Investigator-reported and severe hyperkalaemia events were infrequent (&lt;6%) irrespective of MRA use.Conclusions: In patients admitted for AHF, initiation of empagliflozin produced clinical benefit and was well tolerated irrespective of background MRA use. These findings support the early use of empagliflozin on top of MRA therapy in patients admitted for AHF.</p

Comparison of Dabigatran Plus a P2Y(12) Inhibitor With Warfarin-Based Triple Therapy Across Body Mass Index in RE-DUAL PCI

BACKGROUND: Body mass index (BMI) affects drug levels of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. We sought to assess whether BMI affected outcomes in the RE-DUAL PCI trial. METHODS: RE-DUAL PCI (NCT02164864) evaluated the safety and efficacy of a dual-antithrombotic-therapy regimen using dabigatran (110 mg or 150 mg twice daily and a P2Y12 platelet antagonist) in comparison with triple therapy of warfarin, aspirin, and a P2Y12 platelet inhibitor in 2725 patients with atrial fibrillation who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared the risk of first International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (primary endpoint) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or unplanned revascularization (main efficacy endpoint) in relation to baseline BMI. RESULTS: Median (range) BMI was 28.1 (14-66) kg/m2. Dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy had relevantly and similarly lower rates of bleeding at both 110 mg and 150 mg twice-daily doses, irrespective of BMI. Thromboembolic event rates appeared consistent across categories of BMI, including those &lt;25 and ≥35 kg/m2 (P for interaction: 0.806 and 0.279, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in bleeding with dabigatran dual therapy compared with warfarin triple therapy in patients here evaluated appears consistent across BMI categories