Valvular Heart Disease
Phase 2b RCT: Abelacimab Significantly Reduces Bleeding Events Compared with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
27 Jan, 2025 | 11:00h | UTCBackground: Atrial fibrillation (AF) elevates stroke risk roughly fivefold, necessitating anticoagulation therapy to reduce embolic events. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have replaced vitamin K antagonists as the preferred agents, given their comparable efficacy and lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage. However, significant bleeding—especially gastrointestinal bleeding—still occurs with DOACs, prompting ongoing efforts to develop safer anticoagulants. Abelacimab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting factor XI (and its active form, XIa), is hypothesized to “uncouple” thrombosis from hemostasis, potentially lowering bleeding risk. Early data in knee arthroplasty prevention suggested reduced venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding. This trial (AZALEA–TIMI 71) aimed to compare the bleeding rates of monthly subcutaneous abelacimab with once-daily rivaroxaban in patients with AF and moderate-to-high stroke risk.
Objective: To evaluate whether subcutaneous abelacimab at two doses (150 mg or 90 mg monthly) leads to fewer major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events than rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) in patients with AF.
Methods: In this phase 2b, parallel-group, partially blind, randomized trial, 1287 adults with AF (CHA2_2DS2_2-VASc ≥3–4 and moderate/high stroke risk) were assigned 1:1:1 to abelacimab 150 mg, abelacimab 90 mg, or open-label rivaroxaban. Treatment continued for a median of 2.1 years. The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, adjudicated by a blinded events committee. Levels of free factor XI were measured to gauge abelacimab’s pharmacodynamics. The trial was halted early based on a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee due to unexpectedly large reductions in bleeding with abelacimab.
Results: Median age was 74 years, and 44% of participants were female. In the final analysis of the complete dataset, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred at rates of 3.2 and 2.6 events per 100 person-years for abelacimab 150 mg and 90 mg, respectively, versus 8.4 per 100 person-years for rivaroxaban. Corresponding hazard ratios were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24–0.60) for the 150-mg dose and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.19–0.51) for the 90-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding was notably lower with abelacimab (0.5% in both arms) compared with rivaroxaban (4.2%). Although not powered for stroke prevention, ischemic stroke rates were numerically higher with abelacimab, underscoring the need for larger efficacy trials.
Conclusions: Monthly abelacimab led to substantial and sustained reduction of free factor XI and demonstrated significantly lower bleeding rates than rivaroxaban in patients with AF. While these findings suggest a potentially safer profile for abelacimab, definitive conclusions about stroke prevention require phase 3 studies.
Implications for Practice: Should abelacimab maintain efficacy in preventing thromboembolism in forthcoming trials, it may offer an alternative to existing DOACs, particularly for patients at elevated bleeding risk (e.g., gastrointestinal). However, clinicians must consider real-world factors such as possible high drug cost, insurance coverage, and the logistics of monthly subcutaneous injections. Abelacimab is investigational and not yet approved; its role will depend on phase 3 efficacy and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include randomized design, relatively long follow-up (median 2.1 years), and direct comparison to an established DOAC. The major limitation is that the trial was not sufficiently powered to evaluate stroke or systemic embolism. Moreover, the open-label design between abelacimab and rivaroxaban could introduce bias, partly mitigated by blinded dose assignments for abelacimab and blinded endpoint adjudication. The predominantly White population may limit generalizability.
Future Research: Ongoing phase 3 studies (e.g., LILAC–TIMI 76) will clarify abelacimab’s efficacy and safety in larger cohorts, particularly regarding stroke prevention. Comparative cost analyses, real-world adherence, and exploration of subcutaneous administration logistics will be crucial in determining abelacimab’s long-term clinical value. Additional investigations into factor XIa inhibitors (e.g., small molecules, antisense oligonucleotides) may further expand this therapeutic class.
Reference:
- Ruff CT, Patel SM, Giugliano RP, Morrow DA, Hug B, Kuder JF, et al. “Abelacimab versus Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:361–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2406674
- Angiolillo DJ, Capodanno D. “Uncoupling Thrombosis and Hemostasis by Inhibiting Factor XI.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:400–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2414209
- Mandrola JM. “Factor XI Inhibitors May Not Be Dead.” This Week in Cardiology Podcast. January 24, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/1002184#vp_3
RCT: FFR-Guided PCI Plus TAVI is Non-inferior and Superior to SAVR Plus CABG in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Complex Coronary Disease
8 Dec, 2024 | 21:22h | UTCBackground: Patients with severe aortic stenosis frequently present with concomitant complex coronary artery disease. Current guidelines recommend combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as first-line therapy. However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have emerged as alternative treatments. Assessing their efficacy compared to SAVR plus CABG has been an unmet need.
Objective: To determine whether FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI is non-inferior and, if demonstrated, superior to SAVR plus CABG in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex or multivessel coronary disease.
Methods: This international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included patients aged ≥70 years with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary disease who were deemed suitable for either percutaneous or surgical treatment by a Heart Team. Participants were randomized (1:1) to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI or SAVR plus CABG. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, clinically driven target-vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year.
Results: Among 172 enrolled patients, 91 were assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI and 81 to SAVR plus CABG. At 1 year, the primary endpoint occurred in 4% of patients in the PCI/TAVI group versus 23% in the SAVR/CABG group (risk difference –18.5%; 90% CI –27.8 to –9.7; p<0.001 for non-inferiority; p<0.001 for superiority). The difference was driven mainly by lower all-cause mortality (0% vs 10%, p=0.0025) and reduced life-threatening bleeding (2% vs 12%, p=0.010).
Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI was non-inferior and in fact superior to SAVR plus CABG at 1 year, predominantly due to lower mortality and serious bleeding events.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that a percutaneous strategy may be a viable and potentially preferable alternative to surgery in selected patients. Nevertheless, given this is the first trial of its kind, cautious interpretation is advised, and routine adoption should await further corroboration.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a randomized, multicenter design and standardized endpoint assessment. Limitations involve early trial termination resulting in a smaller sample size and the use of a single TAVI device type, limiting generalizability.
Future Research: Larger trials with longer follow-up, evaluation of other TAVI prostheses, and broader patient populations are needed to validate these findings and determine the optimal patient selection criteria.
RCT: Transcatheter Edge-to-edge Repair Improves Outcomes in Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation
29 Nov, 2024 | 12:37h | UTCBackground: Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is linked to poor quality of life and increased mortality. Traditional medical therapy offers limited symptom relief, and surgical options carry high risks. Transcatheter tricuspid valve therapies like transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER) have emerged as less invasive alternatives, but their impact on patient outcomes needs further exploration.
Objective: To determine if T-TEER combined with optimized medical therapy (OMT) enhances patient-reported outcomes and clinical events compared to OMT alone in patients with severe, symptomatic TR.
Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized (1:1) trial, 300 adults with severe, symptomatic TR despite stable OMT were enrolled from 24 centers in France and Belgium between March 2021 and March 2023. Participants were randomized to receive either T-TEER plus OMT or OMT alone. The primary outcome was a composite clinical endpoint at 1 year, including changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, patient global assessment (PGA), or occurrence of major cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes encompassed TR severity, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score, and a composite of death, tricuspid valve surgery, KCCQ improvement, or hospitalization for heart failure.
Results: At 1 year, 74.1% of patients in the T-TEER plus OMT group improved in the composite endpoint versus 40.6% in the OMT-alone group (P < .001). Massive or torrential TR persisted in 6.8% of the T-TEER group compared to 53.5% of the OMT group (P < .001). The mean KCCQ score was higher in the T-TEER group (69.9 vs 55.4; P < .001). The win ratio for the composite secondary outcome was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.38-3.08; P < .001). No significant differences were observed in major cardiovascular events or cardiovascular death between groups.
Conclusions: Adding T-TEER to OMT significantly reduces TR severity and improves patient-reported outcomes at 1 year in patients with severe, symptomatic TR, without increasing adverse events.
Implications for Practice: T-TEER may offer a valuable addition to OMT for selected patients with severe TR, enhancing symptoms and quality of life. However, the absence of significant differences in hard clinical endpoints and the open-label design suggest cautious interpretation. Clinicians should weigh the benefits against potential biases in patient-reported outcomes.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design and multicenter participation, enhancing the study’s validity. Limitations involve the open-label design without a sham control, potentially introducing bias in subjective outcomes. The short follow-up period and selective patient population based on anatomical suitability for T-TEER may limit generalizability.
Future Research: Longer-term studies are necessary to assess T-TEER’s impact on survival and heart failure hospitalization. Comparative studies of different transcatheter devices and investigations into optimal patient selection criteria are also recommended.
News Release: Edoxaban Comparable to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention After Bioprosthetic Valve Surgery
20 Nov, 2024 | 20:05h | UTCIntroduction: A recent multicenter trial from Japan, presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024, has found that edoxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, is as effective as warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients following bioprosthetic heart valve replacement surgery. This addresses the ongoing need for alternative anticoagulant therapies that simplify post-surgical management and enhance patient quality of life.
Highlights: The ENBALV trial enrolled approximately 400 adults aged 41 to 84 who underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement at the aortic and/or mitral position. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either edoxaban (60 mg or 30 mg once daily) or warfarin for 12 weeks post-surgery. Unlike warfarin, edoxaban does not require regular blood tests to monitor clotting activity and has fewer interactions with food and other medications.
Key findings include:
- Efficacy: Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 0.5% of patients receiving edoxaban compared to 1.5% in the warfarin group, indicating comparable effectiveness.
- Thrombus Formation: No intracardiac thrombus was observed in the edoxaban group, whereas it occurred in 1% of patients on warfarin.
- Bleeding Risks: Major bleeding events were higher in the edoxaban group (4.1% vs. 1% with warfarin). While no fatal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage occurred with edoxaban, one fatal cerebral hemorrhage was reported in the warfarin group. Gastrointestinal bleeding was more common with edoxaban (2.1% vs. 0% with warfarin).
Lead author Dr. Chisato Izumi noted that edoxaban’s fixed dosing and minimal dietary interactions reduce the treatment burden, potentially improving patient adherence during the critical post-operative period.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that edoxaban is a viable alternative to warfarin for anticoagulation after bioprosthetic valve surgery, offering similar protection against stroke and blood clots with the convenience of simplified management. However, the increased incidence of bleeding events with edoxaban underscores the need for careful patient selection and further research to identify individuals at higher risk. These results may inform future clinical guidelines and improve patient care by providing more flexible anticoagulant options.
Source: This study was conducted by the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, and presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024. The full news release is available at: http://newsroom.heart.org/news/patients-taking-edoxoban-after-heart-valve-surgery-had-lower-risk-of-stroke-blood-clots
Additional commentaries can be found at:
- American College of Cardiology: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2024/11/13/21/17/sun-935am-enbalv-aha-2024
- TCTMD: https://www.tctmd.com/news/enbalv-edoxaban-matches-warfarin-after-bioprosthetic-valve-surgery
RCT: Left Atrial Appendage Closure May Reduce Bleeding Without Increasing Stroke Risk After AF Ablation
20 Nov, 2024 | 16:28h | UTCBackground: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), but patients at high risk for stroke require ongoing oral anticoagulation (OAC) due to the potential for asymptomatic AF recurrence. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a mechanical alternative to OAC, but its efficacy and safety post-AF ablation are not well established.
Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of LAAC versus continued OAC in patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation.
Methods: In this international, randomized trial, 1,600 patients with AF and elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (≥2 in men, ≥3 in women) who underwent or were scheduled for catheter ablation were assigned to either LAAC (n=803) or OAC (n=797). The primary safety endpoint was non–procedure-related major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding through 36 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. The secondary endpoint was major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding.
Results: At 36 months, bleeding events occurred in 8.5% of the LAAC group versus 18.1% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for superiority). The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 5.3% of the LAAC group and 5.8% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding, occurred in 3.9% of the LAAC group and 5.0% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Device-related complications occurred in 23 patients, and incomplete device closure was noted in up to 20% of patients.
Conclusions: Among patients undergoing AF ablation, LAAC reduced the risk of bleeding compared to OAC without increasing the risk of death, stroke, or systemic embolism over 36 months.
Implications for Practice: LAAC may be considered as an alternative to long-term OAC in patients undergoing AF ablation who are at moderate to high risk of stroke. However, clinicians should exercise caution due to potential device-related complications, such as incomplete closure and peri-device leaks, which may increase stroke risk. The decision to use LAAC should involve a thorough discussion with the patient about the benefits and risks.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design and large sample size. Limitations involve the exclusion of procedure-related bleeding from the primary safety endpoint, potentially underestimating the true bleeding risk of LAAC. The inclusion of all-cause mortality in the primary efficacy endpoint may dilute the ability to detect differences in stroke risk. Additionally, missing data and a significant rate of incomplete device closure raise concerns about the generalizability and safety of LAAC.
Future Research: Further large-scale, randomized trials are needed to address these limitations, especially to assess stroke risk adequately and the impact of procedural complications. Studies should also evaluate long-term outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of LAAC compared to OAC in diverse patient populations.
References:
- Wazni OM, Saliba WI, Nair DG, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure after Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. Published November 16, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2408308
- Mandrola J. Electrophysiology is on the brink of a possible disaster. November 19, 2024. Available at: https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/electrophysiology-is-on-the-brink
RCT: Preemptive TAVR Does Not Improve Composite Outcomes but May Improve Quality of Life in HFrEF Patients with Moderate Aortic Stenosis
10 Nov, 2024 | 14:18h | UTCBackground: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) management emphasizes neurohormonal modulation and afterload reduction. Moderate aortic stenosis (AS) increases afterload, potentially worsening outcomes in HFrEF patients. While transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is established for severe AS, its benefit in moderate AS remains uncertain.
Objective: To determine whether TAVR provides clinical benefits over guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with HFrEF and moderate AS.
Methods: In the TAVR UNLOAD randomized controlled trial, 178 symptomatic HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction 20%-50%) on GDMT with moderate AS were randomized 1:1 to receive TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve or clinical AS surveillance (CASS) with aortic valve replacement upon progression to severe AS. The primary endpoint was the hierarchical occurrence of: (1) all-cause death; (2) disabling stroke; (3) disease-related hospitalizations and heart failure equivalents; and (4) change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS).
Results: The mean age was 77 years, 20.8% were female, and 55.6% were in NYHA class III or IV. Median follow-up was 23 months. In the CASS group, 43% underwent TAVR due to progression to severe AS at a median of 12 months. TAVR was not superior to CASS for the primary endpoint (win ratio 1.31; 95% CI: 0.91-1.88; P = 0.14). However, at 1 year, TAVR resulted in a greater improvement in KCCQ-OSS compared with CASS (12.8 ± 21.9 vs 3.2 ± 22.8 points; P = 0.018). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality or major adverse events between groups.
Conclusions: In HFrEF patients with moderate AS on GDMT, TAVR was not superior to clinical surveillance for the primary composite endpoint but was associated with improved quality of life at 1 year.
Implications for Practice: Preemptive TAVR may offer quality-of-life benefits in select symptomatic HFrEF patients with moderate AS but does not reduce mortality or major cardiovascular events compared to surveillance. Clinicians should weigh patient-specific factors when considering TAVR for moderate AS.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include being the first randomized trial assessing TAVR in moderate AS with HFrEF. Limitations involve being underpowered due to slow enrollment and protocol changes, and a high crossover rate (43% in the CASS group underwent TAVR), potentially attenuating differences between groups.
Future Research: Larger, adequately powered trials are needed to confirm these findings and identify patients who may benefit most from preemptive TAVR in moderate AS.
RCT: Transcatheter Tricuspid-Valve Replacement Improves Symptoms and Quality of Life in Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation
3 Nov, 2024 | 12:37h | UTCBackground: Severe tricuspid regurgitation is associated with debilitating symptoms and increased mortality. Surgical intervention is infrequently performed due to high operative risks and late patient presentation, leading to poor outcomes. Transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement offers a less invasive alternative versus surgical intervention, but data on its efficacy are limited.
Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation.
Methods: In this international, multicenter randomized controlled trial, 400 patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation despite optimal medical therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement plus medical therapy (valve-replacement group, n=267) or medical therapy alone (control group, n=133). The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of death from any cause, implantation of a right ventricular assist device or heart transplantation, postindex tricuspid-valve intervention, hospitalization for heart failure, and improvements in the KCCQ-OS score by at least 10 points, NYHA functional class by at least one class, and 6-minute walk distance by at least 30 meters.
Results: At one year, the win ratio favoring valve replacement was 2.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.62; P<0.001), indicating superiority over medical therapy alone. Patients in the valve-replacement group had significant improvements in quality of life, with 66.4% achieving an increase of at least 10 points in the KCCQ-OS score compared to 36.5% in the control group. Improvement of at least one NYHA class was observed in 78.9% of the valve-replacement group versus 24.0% of the control group. Reduction of tricuspid regurgitation to mild or less was achieved in 95.2% of patients in the valve-replacement group, compared to 2.3% in the control group. Severe bleeding occurred more frequently in the valve-replacement group (15.4% vs. 5.3%; P=0.003), as did new permanent pacemaker implantation (17.8% vs. 2.3%; P<0.001).
Conclusions: Transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement significantly improved clinical outcomes, symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation compared to medical therapy alone, despite higher risks of severe bleeding and pacemaker implantation.
Implications for Practice: Transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement offers a promising therapeutic option for patients with severe symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation who are at high surgical risk. Clinicians should consider this intervention to improve patient symptoms and quality of life, while carefully weighing the procedural risks, particularly bleeding and arrhythmias requiring pacemaker implantation.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its randomized controlled design and comprehensive evaluation of both clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Limitations involve the smaller control group due to the 2:1 randomization and a one-year follow-up period that may not capture long-term benefits or risks.
Future Research: Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to assess the durability of transcatheter tricuspid-valve replacement, its long-term impact on survival and hospitalization rates, and strategies to minimize procedural complications.
RCT: Early TAVR Improves Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis
29 Oct, 2024 | 13:04h | UTCBackground: Severe aortic stenosis is prevalent among adults aged 65 and older. Current guidelines recommend aortic-valve replacement for symptomatic patients or asymptomatic patients with specific high-risk features. For other asymptomatic patients, routine clinical surveillance is standard due to limited evidence supporting early intervention, particularly with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR).
Objective: To determine whether early TAVR reduces the incidence of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization compared to standard clinical surveillance in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis.
Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 901 asymptomatic patients aged ≥65 years with severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were randomized 1:1 to undergo early TAVR or to receive guideline-directed clinical surveillance. The mean age was 75.8 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.8%, indicating low surgical risk. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.
Results: Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 26.8% of the TAVR group compared to 45.3% of the surveillance group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.63; P<0.001). Individual components showed lower rates in the TAVR group: death (8.4% vs. 9.2%), stroke (4.2% vs. 6.7%), and unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations (20.9% vs. 41.7%). Early TAVR patients also maintained better quality of life, with 86.6% achieving favorable outcomes at 2 years compared to 68.0% in the surveillance group (P<0.001). By 2 years, 87.0% of patients in the surveillance group underwent aortic-valve replacement, many presenting with advanced symptoms and cardiac damage. Procedural complications and periprocedural adverse events were similar between groups.
Conclusions: Early TAVR significantly reduced death, stroke, and unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis compared to clinical surveillance. Early intervention preserved quality of life and cardiac function, suggesting that early TAVR may benefit this patient population.
Implications for Practice: These findings support considering early TAVR in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life. This may challenge current guidelines that recommend surveillance over early intervention.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design, large sample size, and multicenter participation. Limitations involve the study population being predominantly low surgical risk patients aged ≥65 years with anatomy suitable for transfemoral TAVR, which may limit generalizability to younger patients, those with higher surgical risk, or those unsuitable for TAVR.
Future Research: Further research is needed to assess long-term valve durability, outcomes in diverse patient populations, and comparisons with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Studies on cost-effectiveness and the impact on guidelines are also warranted.
RCT: Early Surgical AVR Improved Outcomes in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis
6 Oct, 2024 | 16:29h | UTCBackground: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent valvular heart disease requiring intervention in symptomatic patients. The optimal timing for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function remains uncertain and is under investigation.
Objective: To determine whether early surgical AVR improves clinical outcomes compared to conservative management with watchful waiting in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%).
Methods: The AVATAR trial was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 157 low-risk, asymptomatic patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men) with severe AS and normal LVEF. Patients were randomized to early surgical AVR (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). All participants had negative exercise stress tests to confirm asymptomatic status. The primary composite endpoint included all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Secondary outcomes encompassed individual components of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, serious adverse events, and procedural metrics.
Results: Over a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 23.1% of the early surgery group versus 46.8% of the conservative group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24–0.73; P=0.002). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early surgery group (16.7% vs. 34.2%; HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23–0.85; P=0.012). Unplanned HF hospitalizations were also reduced (4.0% vs. 17.0%; HR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06–0.73; P=0.007). There were no significant differences in stroke rates between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in the early surgery group (26.4% vs. 49.4%; P=0.013). Sudden cardiac death was less common in the early surgery group, though not statistically significant (5.1% vs. 11.4%; P=0.17).
Conclusions: Early surgical AVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LVEF significantly improved clinical outcomes, including reductions in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations, compared to conservative management.
Implications for Practice: These findings support considering early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV function to reduce the risk of adverse events and improve long-term outcomes. Clinicians should weigh the benefits of early intervention against surgical risks, emphasizing careful patient selection and monitoring.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its randomized design, extended follow-up period, and strict inclusion of truly asymptomatic patients confirmed by negative exercise testing. Limitations involve a smaller sample size than initially projected, potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on follow-up and healthcare access, and early termination of enrollment, which may affect the generalizability of the results.
Future Research: Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these findings and explore the role of early intervention strategies, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), in asymptomatic patients with severe AS.
RCT: PCI Reduces Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Undergoing TAVI with Significant Coronary Artery Disease
14 Sep, 2024 | 19:09h | UTCBackground:
Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexist, particularly in the elderly population. Approximately 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have concurrent CAD. The optimal management of significant coronary lesions in patients undergoing TAVI remains uncertain, with guidelines providing no clear recommendations. Understanding whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes in this setting is crucial for guiding clinical practice.
Objective:
To evaluate whether routine PCI of physiologically significant coronary lesions improves clinical outcomes compared to conservative management in patients with stable CAD undergoing TAVI.
Methods:
- Design: International, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (NOTION-3).
- Participants: 455 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis scheduled for TAVI and at least one significant coronary lesion (defined as fractional flow reserve [FFR] ≤0.80 or diameter stenosis ≥90%).
- Interventions:
- PCI Group (n=227): Underwent PCI of all eligible lesions followed by TAVI.
- Conservative Treatment Group (n=228): Received TAVI without prior PCI.
- Primary Endpoint: Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction (MI), or urgent revascularization.
- Secondary Endpoints: Included individual components of the primary endpoint, bleeding events, stroke, hospital admissions for heart failure, and procedural complications.
- Follow-Up: Median of 2 years (interquartile range, 1 to 4 years).
Results:
- Baseline Characteristics: Median age was 82 years; 67% were men; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons–Procedural Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 3%.
- Primary Endpoint (MACE):
- Occurred in 26% of patients in the PCI group versus 36% in the conservative group.
- Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.71 (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.99; P=0.04), indicating a 29% relative risk reduction with PCI.
- Components of MACE:
- Myocardial Infarction:
- Lower incidence in the PCI group.
- Urgent Revascularization:
- Reduced need in the PCI group.
- Myocardial Infarction:
- All-Cause Mortality:
- No significant difference between groups.
- Bleeding Events:
- Higher in the PCI group (28% vs. 20%; HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.22).
- Bleeding assessed according to Valve Academic Research Consortium–2 criteria.
- Procedural Complications:
- PCI-related complications occurred in 3% of patients in the PCI group.
- Safety Endpoints:
- Similar rates of stroke and stent thrombosis between groups.
- Acute kidney injury was less frequent in the PCI group (5% vs. 11%; HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.89).
Conclusions:
In patients with stable CAD and severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, performing PCI on significant coronary lesions resulted in a statistically significant reduction in MACE over a median follow-up of 2 years compared to conservative management. The benefit was primarily due to reductions in myocardial infarction and urgent revascularization rates. However, this advantage was accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding events.
Clinical Implications:
- Patient Selection: PCI should be considered in patients with physiologically significant coronary lesions (FFR ≤0.80 or diameter stenosis ≥90%) undergoing TAVI.
- Risk–Benefit Analysis: Clinicians should balance the reduction in MACE against the increased bleeding risk when deciding on PCI.
- Treatment Strategy: The findings support a strategy of routine revascularization in this patient population to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
- Future Considerations: Further research is needed to determine the optimal timing of PCI relative to TAVI and to identify which patient subgroups may derive the most benefit.
Recommendations:
- Guideline Update: The results may inform future guidelines to provide clearer recommendations on managing CAD in patients undergoing TAVI.
- Individualized Care: Decisions regarding PCI should be individualized, considering patient comorbidities, anatomical complexity, and bleeding risk.
- Antithrombotic Therapy: Attention to antiplatelet and anticoagulation strategies is important to mitigate bleeding risks.
Study Limitations:
- Exclusion of patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and left main coronary artery disease limits the generalizability.
- Changes in antithrombotic regimens over the study period reflect evolving clinical practice but may affect outcomes.
- Majority of patients had low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, so results may not apply to those with more complex CAD.
Final Note:
The NOTION-3 trial provides valuable evidence supporting the use of PCI in patients with significant CAD undergoing TAVI, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive cardiovascular care in this high-risk population.
RCT: Transcatheter Repair Noninferior to Mitral-Valve Surgery for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation
12 Sep, 2024 | 12:13h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This noninferiority trial, conducted in Germany, enrolled 210 patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite medical therapy. Patients were randomized to undergo either transcatheter edge-to-edge repair or mitral-valve surgery, with outcomes assessed over a one-year period.
Main Findings: Transcatheter repair was found to be noninferior to mitral-valve surgery regarding the primary efficacy outcome—a composite of death, heart failure hospitalization, mitral-valve reintervention, assist device implantation, or stroke at one year (16.7% in the transcatheter group vs. 22.5% in the surgery group; mean difference, -6%; 95% CI, -17 to 6; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The transcatheter group experienced fewer major adverse events within 30 days (14.9% vs. 54.8%; mean difference, -40%; 95% CI, -51 to -27; P<0.001).
Implications for Practice: Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair offers a similar efficacy to mitral-valve surgery at one year with a lower rate of short-term adverse events, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative, particularly for patients with higher surgical risk.
RCT: Routine Protamine Administration Enhances Hemostasis and Reduces Vascular Complications in TAVI – JAMA Cardiol
17 Aug, 2024 | 19:09h | UTCStudy Design and Population: The ACE-PROTAVI trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at three Australian hospitals. It involved 410 patients (median age 81 years) undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of routine protamine administration versus placebo.
Main Findings: Patients receiving protamine showed a higher rate of successful hemostasis (97.9% vs. 91.6%) and a significantly shorter time to hemostasis (median 181 vs. 279 seconds). Protamine administration also led to a reduced risk of composite vascular complications (5.2% vs. 12.8%), primarily due to fewer minor vascular events. No adverse events were associated with protamine.
Implications for Practice: Routine protamine administration after TAVI improves hemostasis, reduces minor vascular complications, and shortens procedural and postprocedural recovery times, suggesting it should be considered in standard TAVI protocols.
Single-Arm Study: Evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation – The Lancet
25 May, 2024 | 19:45h | UTCThis article discusses the ALIGN-AR study, a prospective, multicenter, single-arm trial conducted across 20 US sites. The study enrolled 180 high-risk patients suffering from moderate-to-severe or severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation, who were treated with the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve. The average age of participants was 75.5 years, with a roughly equal gender distribution among the 180 participants. The primary safety endpoint of the study was assessed against a prespecified performance goal of 40.5%, with results showing a 27% event rate, which was considered non-inferior (p<0.0001). Additionally, the primary efficacy endpoint, 1-year all-cause mortality, was 7.8%, significantly below the performance goal of 25%, also demonstrating non-inferiority (p<0.0001). The study reported a 95% technical success rate with adverse events such as new pacemaker implantation occurring in 24% of the patients. These findings suggest that the Trilogy transcatheter heart valve is a viable and effective option for high-risk patients, achieving favorable short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Further follow-up is necessary to determine long-term results and effects on left ventricular remodeling.
Reference (link to abstract – $ for full-text):
M-A: Reduced risk of infective endocarditis following dental procedures with antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk individuals
26 Apr, 2024 | 12:07h | UTCStudy Design and Population:
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures. Researchers analyzed data from 1,152,345 cases sourced from PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, and other databases up to May 2023. The study included various research designs, such as case-control, cohort, and time-trend studies, assessing the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis across different risk groups.
Main Findings:
The meta-analysis revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis significantly lowers the risk of infective endocarditis among individuals at high risk (pooled relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57), with consistent findings across studies of good quality. However, the effectiveness of prophylaxis in individuals at moderate or low/unknown risk remains unsupported by sufficient evidence. Time-trend studies provided mixed results, with some indicating no change or an increase in infective endocarditis incidence post-guideline changes in 2007.
Implications for Practice:
The findings support the continued use of antibiotic prophylaxis for high-risk individuals undergoing invasive dental procedures, aligning with current guidelines from the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology. The lack of clear benefits in moderate and low-risk groups suggests a need for further research to optimize prophylaxis guidelines and ensure effective risk stratification in clinical practice.
Reference (link to abstract – $ for full-text):
Registry Analysis | Incidence and impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVR with self-expanding valves
8 Aug, 2023 | 13:29h | UTCIncidence, Predictors, and Prognostic Impact of New Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After TAVR With Self-Expanding Valves – JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions (link to abstract – $ for full-text)
Commentaries:
Pacemaker Implantation Still Risky, Not Rare With Self-Expanding TAVI Devices – TCTMD
BSH guideline for anticoagulant management of pregnant individuals with mechanical heart valves
2 Aug, 2023 | 14:01h | UTC
Debate | Do all patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis need valve replacement?
2 Aug, 2023 | 13:58h | UTC
Commentary on Twitter
Great debate just published in #EHJ: all patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis need valve replacement.https://t.co/2BclgoYvKj#aorticstenosis @escardio @ESC_Journals pic.twitter.com/Qslzw6EiCa
— EHJ Editor-in-Chief (@ehj_ed) August 1, 2023
Consensus Paper | Diagnosis and management of infective endocarditis in adults
1 Aug, 2023 | 14:34h | UTC
Registry Analysis | Similar 1-year mortality rates post-TAVR in cardiogenic shock patients surviving 30-day mark
31 Jul, 2023 | 13:47h | UTC
Commentary on Twitter
Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with cardiogenic shock https://t.co/Ci1MIWVYuE @escardio #EHJ #ESCYoung @ehj_ed @rladeiraslopes pic.twitter.com/zwvFUT8lKt
— European Society of Cardiology Journals (@ESC_Journals) June 29, 2023
Cohort Study | Examining patient demographics, microbiology, and mortality in infectious endocarditis after TAVI
25 Jul, 2023 | 13:48h | UTC
Case Series | Cutibacterium acnes endocarditis often misdiagnosed due to absence of typical symptoms and delayed culture results
17 Jul, 2023 | 13:31h | UTC
M-A | Family screening for bicuspid aortic valve and aortic dilatation
5 Jul, 2023 | 01:01h | UTC
Commentary on Twitter
Family screening for bicuspid aortic valve and aortic dilatation: a meta-analysis https://t.co/8rc4Uysf5o @escardio #EHJ #ESCYoung pic.twitter.com/p4XRzb3mzb
— European Society of Cardiology Journals (@ESC_Journals) June 15, 2023
Cohort Study | Risk and outcome of infective endocarditis in streptococcal bloodstream infections according to streptococcal species
22 Jun, 2023 | 15:09h | UTC
RCT | No superior recovery with minithoracotomy over sternotomy in mitral valve repair
20 Jun, 2023 | 12:51h | UTCMinithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial – JAMA (free for a limited period)
See also: Visual Abstract
Review | Treatment of Enterococcus faecalis infective endocarditis
30 May, 2023 | 11:54h | UTCTreatment of Enterococcus faecalis Infective Endocarditis: A Continuing Challenge – Antibiotics