CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Advances in Coronary No-Reflow Phenomenon-a Contemporary Review A Randomized Trial Comparing the NeoVas Sirolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Everolimus-Eluting Stents Homeostatic Chemokines and Prognosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes A Randomized Trial to Assess Regional Left Ventricular Function After Stent Implantation in Chronic Total Occlusion The REVASC Trial Better Prognosis After Complete Revascularization Using Contemporary Coronary Stents in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Management of Patients With NSTE-ACS: A Comparison of the Recent AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Randomized Trial Radionuclide Image-Guided Repair of the Heart Percutaneous Support Devices for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Original ResearchVolume 74, Issue 9, September 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Anticoagulation After Surgical or Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

T Chakravarty, A Patel, S Kapadia et al. Keywords: anticoagulation; bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND- There is paucity of evidence on the impact of anticoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

 

OBJECTIVES- The study aimed to assess the impact of AC after bioprosthetic AVR on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

 

METHODS- Data on antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy were collected. Echocardiograms were performed at 30 days and 1 year post-AVR. Linear regression model and propensity-score adjusted cox proportional model were used to assess the impact of AC on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes, respectively.

 

RESULTS- A total of 4,832 patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR], n = 3,889 and surgical AVR [SAVR], n = 943) in the pooled cohort of PARTNER2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized trials and nonrandomized registries were studied. Following adjustment for valve size, annular diameter, atrial fibrillation, and ejection fraction at the time of assessment of hemodynamics, there was no significant difference in aortic valve mean gradients or aortic valve areas between patients discharged on AC vs. those not discharged on AC, for either TAVR or SAVR cohorts. A significantly greater proportion of patients not discharged on AC had an increase in mean gradient >10 mm Hg from 30 days to 1 year, compared with those discharged on AC (2.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.03). There was no independent association between AC after TAVR and adverse outcomes (death, p = 0.15; rehospitalization, p = 0.16), whereas AC after SAVR was associated with significantly fewer strokes (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.050.60; p = 0.006).

 

CONCLUSIONS- In the short term, early AC after bioprosthetic AVR did not result in adverse clinical events, did not significantly affect aortic valve hemodynamics (aortic valve gradients or area), and was associated with decreased rates of stroke after SAVR (but not after TAVR). Whether early AC after bioprosthetic AVR has impact on long-term outcomes remains to be determined. (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves [PARTNERII A]; NCT01314313)