Thrombosis

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants have proven to be more efficacious, safe, and easy to use, compared with warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (Afib). An indirect comparison showed apixaban to be more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. But randomized controlled trials and head-to-head comparison data regarding the same have been lacking until now.

This observational study has several limitations including an inability to balance unmeasured confounding factors, both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes being used for defined outcomes, an inability to account for time-varying confounders for stroke or bleeding, an inability to capture patients from locations other than primary internist and cardiologists, and a shorter follow-up period, compared with that of clinical trials.

Bottom line: In routine practice, apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban with a lower rate of strokes, systemic embolism, and major bleeding.

Citation: Fralick M et al. Effectiveness and safety of apixaban compared with rivaroxaban for patients with atrial fibrillation in routine practice: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-2522.

Dr. Almagdub is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the Amplatzer Amulet left atrial appendage occluder (Abbott) to treat people with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

The Amulet and its competitor, Boston Scientific’s Watchman, are minimally invasive devices used to close off the left atrial appendage (LAA), an area where blood clots tend to form in people with atrial fibrillation.

Amulet uses dual-seal technology to completely and immediately seal the LAA, the company says, whereas the other minimally invasive solution uses a single component to seal the LAA that requires blood-thinning drugs to heal and additional patient monitoring. The Amulet also has the widest range of occluder sizes on the market and is recapturable and repositionable to ensure optimal placement.

“As the world’s population continues to age, we’re seeing a surge in atrial fibrillation cases, and with that comes increased risk of stroke. The approval of Abbott’s Amulet device provides physicians with a treatment option that reduces the risk of stroke and eliminates the need for blood-thinning medication immediately after the procedure, which is incredibly valuable given the bleeding risks associated with these medicines,” Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute at HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., and principal investigator for the study that led to FDA approval, said in a news release from Abbott.

The FDA approval is supported by findings from the global Amulet IDE trial, a head-to-head comparison of the Amulet and Watchman devices in 1,878 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The results will be presented virtually on Aug. 30 at the 2021 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The Amplatzer Amulet received CE Mark designation in 2013 and is approved for use in more than 80 countries, including in Australia, Canada, and European countries.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women have more in-hospital complications than men and double the risk for major adverse events after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with the Watchman device, according to new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry data.

In-hospital mortality was also twofold higher among women than men and hospital stay was longer. Even after adjustment for potential confounders, these relationships still exist, Douglas Darden, MD, University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported online in JAMA Cardiology.

“I think this article certainly highlights – specific to a procedure that has gained more popularity and will become more commonplace in cardiovascular practice – that operators and patients need to pay more attention [to the fact] that women may be at more risk for adverse events and mortality,” senior author Jonathan Hsu, MD, also from UCSD, told this news organization.

Possible explanations for the disparities include anatomic differences between the sexes, such as smaller vessel diameter, thinner myocardial wall, and a more friable LLA in women; increased frailty; and clinician inexperience, the authors suggest.

“It could be something as simple or as specific as thinness of tissue or friability of tissue that may predispose women more than men to perforation or other risks that may put them at risk for adverse events specifically,” Dr. Hsu said.

Commenting further, he said, “I think we would be remiss not to mention the fact that part of this association may unfortunately be a disparity in care that women as a specific sex may receive,” he said.

Indeed, postimplantation women had higher adjusted odds of receiving a direct oral anticoagulant only (odds ratio, 1.07, P = .02) and warfarin only (OR, 1.12; P < .001), and lower odds of receiving clinical trial-recommended combined oral anticoagulants plus single antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.91; P < .001).

“This article highlights the fact that in all aspects we need to pay attention that women receive as high-level, guideline-driven care as men,” Dr. Hsu said.

First author Dr. Darden pointed out in an email that women suffer disproportionately from atrial fibrillation (AFib), compared with men, with worse quality of life and higher risk for stroke. So “it’s only natural to seek further treatment in order to decrease that risk, specifically LAAO with Watchman.”

Despite the fact that women are known to be at greater risk for adverse events after invasive procedures, including AFib ablation and TAVR, little is known about sex differences with LAAO, as the LAAO clinical trials only included about 30% women, he said.

Two 2021 papers zeroing in on these sex differences produced mixed results. An American report in roughly 9,200 patients reported a higher risk for major in-hospital events in women after receipt of Watchman implants, whereas a German report found similar safety and efficacy among 387 consecutive patients, regardless of sex.

The present study involved 20,388 women and 28,969 men implanted with the Watchman device between January 2016 and June 2019 in the NCDR registry, the largest LAAO registry with adjudicated events with participation mandated for Medicare coverage.

The women were older (mean age, 76.5 vs. 75.8 years), had a higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (5.3 vs. 4.5), and were more likely to have a high fall risk as an indication for LAAO (39.8% vs. 33.5%).

Furthermore, women were more likely than men to have paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and uncontrolled hypertension, but less likely to have congestive heart failure, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.

After multivariable adjustment, all but one of the primary outcomes was significantly worse in women versus men:

• Aborted or canceled procedure: 3.0% vs. 2.9% (OR, 1.01; P = .87)
• Any adverse event: 6.3% vs. 3.9% (OR, 1.63; P < .001)
• Major adverse event: 4.1% vs. 2.0% (OR, 2.06; P < .001)
• Hospital stay more than 1 day: 16.0% vs. 11.6% (OR, 1.46; P < .001)
• Death: 58/0.3% vs. 37/0.1% (OR, 2.01; P = .001).

The authors point out that device-related adverse events are lower than in the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL clinical trials of the Watchman, with 0.8% of patients developing a pericardial effusion requiring drainage and 1.2% having major bleeding, down from highs of 4.8% and 3.5%, respectively, in PROTECT-AF.

Although promising overall, adverse events among women were driven by higher rates of both pericardial effusion requiring draining (1.2% vs. 0.5%; P < .001) and major bleeding (1.7% vs. 0.8%; P < .001).

Commenting for this news organization John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Kentucky, expressed concern that despite its increasing popularity, the rate of serious complications appears to be increasing for the preventive procedure. “That’s peculiar because you’d expect increased experience and device iterations to decrease complications. And the NCDR data surely undercounts the real rate of adverse events because it only includes in-hospital complications.”

Based on the current data, he observed that there’s a 3% chance for a major complication overall, with the typical female Watchman patient facing a 6% chance of any adverse event and 4% risk for a major adverse event during her hospital stay alone.

“The striking difference in complications in women is a super important observation because higher upfront risk has an even more negative effect on the harm-benefit calculus of this procedure,” Dr. Mandrola said.

“Some of the increased harm in women may have been due to the slightly higher rate of comorbid conditions, but that is real-life,” he said. “Registry data like this is extremely valuable because, unlike the carefully selected randomized trial, registries reflect what is actually being done in practice.”

Dr. Hsu agreed that the absolute numbers are concerning. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t necessarily sound an alarm that our adverse events are worse in contemporary practice or that adverse events continue to increase. But, in general, it just points to the fact that there is this inherent larger risk in women, compared with men, and that we need to, first, figure out why, and second, we need to figure out how to improve.”

Strategies to mitigate procedural risk included ultrasound-guided venous access, preprocedural imaging, improved proficiency with LAAO devices, and continued development of safer devices, they note.

Despite the more generalizable nature of registry data, “the results of this study should not result in differing sex-based thresholds for LAAO implant,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s NCDR. Dr. Hsu reports financial relationships with Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Biotronik, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Biosense Webster, Altathera Pharmaceuticals, and Zoll Medical and holding equity interest in Acutus Medical and Vektor Medical outside the submitted work. Dr. Darden reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mandrola is a regular contributor to Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

Therapeutic levels of heparin can have widely varying effects on COVID-19 patients depending on the severity of their disease, according to a multiplatform clinical trial that analyzed patient data from three international trials.

NYU Langone Health

COVID-19 patients in the ICU, or at least receiving ICU-level care, derived no benefit from anticoagulation with heparin, while non–critically ill COVID-19 patients – those who were hospitalized but not receiving ICU-level care – on the same anticoagulation were less likely to progress to need respiratory or cardiovascular organ support despite a slightly heightened risk of bleeding events.

Reporting in two articles published online in the New England Journal of Medicine, authors of three international trials combined their data into one multiplatform trial that makes a strong case for prescribing therapeutic levels of heparin in hospitalized patients not receiving ICU-level care were non–critically ill and critically ill.

“I think this is going to be a game changer,” said Jeffrey S. Berger, MD, ACTIV-4a co–principal investigator and co–first author of the study of non–critically ill patients. “I think that using therapeutic-dose anticoagulation should improve outcomes in the tens of thousands of patients worldwide. I hope our data can have a global impact.”
 

Outcomes based on disease severity

The multiplatform trial analyzed data from the Antithrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC); A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Controlled Platform Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Strategies in Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 (ACTIV-4a); and Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP).

The trial evaluated 2,219 non–critically ill hospitalized patients, 1,181 of whom were randomized to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation; and 1,098 critically ill patients, 534 of whom were prescribed therapeutic levels of heparin.

In the critically ill patients, those on heparin were no more likely to get discharged or spend fewer days on respiratory or CV organ support – oxygen, mechanical ventilation, life support, vasopressors or inotropes – than were those on usual-care thromboprophylaxis. The investigators stopped the trial in both patient populations: in critically ill patients when it became obvious therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was having no impact; and in moderately ill patients when the trial met the prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation.

ICU patients on therapeutic-level heparin spent an average of 1 day free of organ support vs. 4 for patients on usual-care prophylactic antithrombotic drugs. The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the therapeutic-level and usual-care critically ill patients: 62.7% and 64.5%, respectively. Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between both patient groups.

However, in non–critically ill patients, therapeutic levels of heparin resulted in a marked improvement in outcomes. The researchers estimated that, for every 1,000 hospitalized patients with what they labeled moderate disease, an initial treatment with therapeutic-dose heparin resulted in 40 additional patients surviving compared to usual-care thromboprophylaxis.

The percentages of patients not needing organ support before hospital discharge was 80.2% on therapeutic-dose heparin and 76.4% on usual-care therapy. In terms of adjusted odds ratio, the anticoagulation group had a 27% improved chance of not needing daily organ support.

Those improvements came with an additional seven major bleeding events per 1,000 patients. That broke down to a rate of 1.9% in the therapeutic-dose and 0.9% in the usual-care patients.

As the Delta variant of COVID-19 spreads, Patrick R. Lawler, MD, MPH, principal investigator of the ATTACC trial, said there’s no reason these findings shouldn’t apply for all variants of the disease.

University of Toronto

Dr. Lawler, a physician-scientist at Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at Toronto General Hospital, noted that the multiplatform study did not account for disease variant. “Ongoing clinical trials are tracking the variant patients have or the variants that are most prevalent in an area at that time,” he said. “It may be easier in future trials to look at that question.”
 

Explaining heparin’s varying effects

The study did not specifically sort out why moderately ill patients fared better on heparin than their critically ill counterparts, but Dr. Lawler speculated on possible reasons. “One might be that the extent of illness severity is too extreme in the ICU-level population for heparin to have a beneficial extent,” he said.

He acknowledged that higher rates of macrovascular thrombosis, such as venous thromboembolism, in ICU patients would suggest that heparin would have a greater beneficial effect, but, he added, “it may also suggest how advanced that process is, and perhaps heparin is not adequate to reverse the course at that point given relatively extensive thrombosis and associate organ failure.”

As clinicians have gained experience dealing with COVID-19, they’ve learned that infected patients carry a high burden of macro- and microthrombosis, Dr. Berger said, which may explain why critically ill patients didn’t respond as well to therapeutic levels of heparin. “I think the cat is out of the bag; patients who are severe are too ill to benefit,” he said. “I would think there’s too much microthrombosis that is already in their bodies.”

However, this doesn’t completely rule out therapeutic levels of heparin in critically ill COVID-19 patients. There are some scenarios where it’s needed, said Dr. Berger, associate professor of medicine and surgery and director of the Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at New York University Langone Health. “Anyone who has a known clot already, like a known macrothrombosis in their leg or lung, needs to be on full-dose heparin,” he said.

That rationale can help reconcile the different outcomes in the critically and non–critically ill COVID-19 patients, wrote Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD, of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, wrote in an accompanying editorial. But differences in the study populations may also explain the divergent outcomes, Dr. ten Cate noted.

The studies suggest that critically ill patients may need hon-heparin antithrombotic approaches “or even profibrinolytic strategies,” Dr. Cate wrote, and that the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis “remains an important question.” Nonetheless, he added, treating physicians must deal with the bleeding risk when using heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin in moderately ill COVID-19 patients.

Deepak L. Bhatt MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview that reconciling the two studies was “a bit challenging,” because effective therapies tend to have a greater impact in sicker patients.

“Of course, with antithrombotic therapies, bleeding side effects can sometimes overwhelm benefits in patients who are at high risk of both bleeding and ischemic complications, though that does not seem to be the explanation here,” Dr. Bhatt said. “I do think we need more data to clarify exactly which COVID patients benefit from various antithrombotic regimens, and fortunately, there are other ongoing studies, some of which will report relatively soon.”

He concurred with Dr. Berger that patients who need anticoagulation should receive it “apart from their COVID status,” Dr. Bhatt said. “Sick, hospitalized patients with or without COVID should receive appropriate prophylactic doses of anticoagulation.” However, he added, “Whether we should routinely go beyond that in COVID-positive inpatients, I think we need more data.”

The ATTACC platform received grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and several other research foundations. The ACTIV-4a platform received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. REMAP-CAP received funding from the European Union and several international research foundations, as well as Amgen and Eisai.

Dr. Lawler had no relationships to disclose. Dr. Berger disclosed receiving grants from the NHLBI, and financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Amgen outside the submitted work. Dr. ten Cate reported relationships with Alveron, Coagulation Profile, Portola/Alexion, Bayer, Pfizer, Stago, Leo Pharma, Daiichi, and Gilead/Galapagos. Dr. Bhatt is chair of the data safety and monitoring board of the FREEDOM COVID anticoagulation clinical trial.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel struggled to muster support for marketing clearance of the TriGuard 3 (Keystone Heart) device for use during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The Circulatory Systems Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee took no vote when it met Aug. 3, but weighed evidence for a proposed indication for the device “to minimize the risk of cerebral damage by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation” during TAVR.

“While this device may deflect some debris, the data would suggest it may also create issues,” said Keith B. Allen, MD, director of surgical research at the Mid America Heart & Lung Surgeons, Kansas City, Mo. “I am really concerned that our desire and the emotion that surrounds preventing stroke are not being supported by the data.”

TriGuard 3 received CE Mark in Europe in March 2020. It was submitted for 510(k) clearance and seeks to prove substantial equivalence to the predicate Sentinel device (Claret Medical), currently the only approved embolic protection device in the United States.

The device is designed to cover all three major aortic vessels (innominate, left carotid, and left subclavian arteries) and is delivered transfemorally through an 8F sheath, whereas the Sentinel is positioned within the branch vessels, doesn’t cover the left subclavian artery, and is introduced through the radial or brachial artery via a 6F sheath.

TriGuard 3 faced an uphill battle, however, after failing to meet the primary composite efficacy endpoint in the REFLECT phase 2 trial (P = .857), with numeric trends showing higher all-cause mortality or any stroke at 30 days (9.8% vs. 6.7%) than pooled control subjects without embolic protection.

Rates for other components of the endpoint also trended higher with the device: National Institutes of Stroke Stroke Scale score worsening 2-5 days after the procedure, cerebral ischemic lesions on MRI 2-5 days after the procedure, and total cerebral ischemic lesion volume.

The Sentinel device was approved in 2017 after it failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint of new brain lesion volume on MRI, but death and stroke rates favored the device over control, the panel pointed out.

The sponsor provided additional analyses in the per treatment (PT) population, defined as those with complete three-vessel coverage in at least two of three procedural time points. Compared with pooled control subjects, most of the imaging endpoints favored the TriGuard 3 device, but clinical neurologic event rates continued to favor the control group.

“The data used to demonstrate efficacy are all based on the PT subpopulation of the whole population, and those have to be considered promissory data,” said John Hirshfeld, MD, emeritus professor, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “This is the group where everything went well and for us to decide that’s achievable in the general population is speculative.”
 

Safety data

The REFLECT trial did meet its primary safety endpoint, with a 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event rate of 15.9%, compared with a performance goal of 34.4% (P < .0001).

Although prespecified, panel members pushed back, saying that the performance goal was unacceptably high, with several members remarking they’d never heard of a trial adding 9% as a “fudge factor” to a 25% historic control rate to get to the 34% performance target.

Keystone health officials noted that REFLECT was not designed to demonstrate a significant difference in the rate of primary safety events, compared with control. Instead, its purpose was to demonstrate that TriGuard 3 did not increase the risk associated with a TAVR procedure.

The TriGuard 3 device was successfully placed and retrieved in 100% of patients, but complete coverage was not uniform, with 72% of 157 as-treated patients having complete three-vessel coverage post TAVR but 15% having no coverage.

Panel members also expressed concern over device interference during TAVR, which was reported in nearly 10% of all TriGuard patients.

The TriGuard 3 group had 11 major vascular complications, 2 directly related to the device, and 3 stage 3 acute kidney injuries, whereas neither complication occurred in the control group.

Throughout the 9-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with what was described as a highly select patient group and small patient numbers that made it difficult to interpret observed differences. The trial involved 157 TriGuard 3 patients (including 41 from the roll-in phase) and 119 control subjects pooled from phase 2 of the trial (n = 57) and from phase 1 using the early-stage TriGuard HDH device (n = 57).

Pieter Stella, MD, PhD, Utrecht (the Netherlands) Medical Center, also presented “real-world” evidence from 75 patients in the Netherlands using the latest iteration of the device available in Europe with updates to the crimper and additional training materials to prevent the device from torquing during delivery. No strokes were reported, one patient had a transient ischemic attack (TIA), and two patients had a dissection, which resolved without sequelae.

Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, countered that there were only three experienced operators from a single center and that the stroke incidence was physician reported, “not data we can really embrace.”

There was much debate over why enrollment in phase 2 of the RHYTHM trial was temporarily paused in February 2019, briefly restarted, and then prematurely stopped in April 2019.

FDA officials said the study was paused at the recommendation of the data monitoring committee (DMC) because rates of safety events were different between patients and control subjects and operational errors called into question the accuracy of the data being reviewed. Ultimately, both the DMC and FDA recommended study suspension.

During the public hearing, TAVR pioneer Alain Cribier, MD, University of Rouen’s Charles Nicolle Hospital, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France, said the TriGuard 3 is of interest because it can be used with minimal need for manipulation and complete coverage of the cerebral vessels that is achieved by diverting rather than capturing debris. “The rapid and exponential growth of TAVR procedures demands safe TAVR interventions and the use of cerebral protection devices is a step in this direction.”

Others took a dim view. “Given that the Sentinel device has not demonstrated benefit on clinical outcomes, there is significant concern about similar devices, such as the TriGuard 3, providing clinical benefit,” Rita Redberg, MD, Sanket Dhruva, MD, and Robin Ji, University of California, San Francisco, wrote in a letter submitted to the panel.

Commenting further, they added: “With the results from the REFLECT II trial demonstrating no evidence for clinical outcome benefit in TAVR patients, and numerically higher rates for stroke risk, mortality, bleeding risk, and other dangerous adverse complications among those treated, it is concerning and dangerous for patient safety that the TriGUARD 3 cerebral embolic protection device is being considered for FDA 510(k) clearance.”

The FDA panel members reported no financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.

[email protected]

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.

[email protected]

Medicare Part D spending for oral anticoagulants has risen by almost 1,600% since 2011, while the number of users has increased by just 95%, according to a new study.

In 2011, the year after the first direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) was approved, Medicare Part D spent $0.44 billion on all oral anticoagulants. By 2019, when there a total of four DOACs on the market, spending was $7.38 billion, an increase of 1,577%, Aaron Troy, MD, MPH, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, said in JAMA Health Forum.

[email protected]

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Most patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) require anticoagulant therapy to reduce venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk. Compared with injectable low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), warfarin, and newer oral agents, aspirin is easily administered, inexpensive, and well tolerated and requires no monitoring. There are observational data to support aspirin as VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. However, high-quality randomized, clinical trials (RCT) in favor of aspirin have been limited. Recently, a large RCT (n = 3,224) that compared aspirin to rivaroxaban after THR and TKR has been published that supports aspirin use for VTE prophylaxis.

This systematic review and meta-­analysis included trials from around the world, including the most recent and largest in this area. However, because of the heterogeneity and high risk of bias encountered in most RCTs included in this analysis, additional large, well-designed RCTs are needed to validate findings of this review.

Bottom line: Findings of the current meta-analysis support the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR, in line with the 2012 recommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Citation: Matharu GS et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 3;180(3):376-84.

Dr. Mehta is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.