User login
Pulmonary embolism treatment teams adopted widely for complex disease
NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.
Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.
“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”
PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.
At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.
“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.
Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.
It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.
So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.
“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.
There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.
Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.
“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”
The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.
For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.
SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM
NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.
Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.
“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”
PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.
At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.
“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.
Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.
It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.
So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.
“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.
There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.
Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.
“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”
The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.
For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.
SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM
NEW YORK – Seven years after the formation of the first pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), more than 100 institutions have joined the PERT Consortium, which was created to guide care and research for this thrombotic complication, according to a status report at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
“Why are PERTs needed? Pulmonary embolism patients are like snowflakes. No two are the same,” explained Richard Channick, MD, director of the pulmonary vascular disease program, University of California, Los Angeles.
Patient variability is an issue because algorithms for pulmonary embolism (PE) often differ at the point of diagnosis, such as the emergency department or intensive are unit, according to Dr. Channick, who was present when the first PERT was created in 2012 at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston. In addition, treatment algorithms can seem complex at a time when patients are deteriorating quickly.
“The treatment algorithms always say consider this or consider that, and then you get a recommendation with a 2B grade of evidence. So what do you do?” Dr. Channick asked, “This has really been crying for an organized approach.”
PERTs were created to fill this need. In most centers, PERTs are organized to respond to a diagnosis of PE wherever it occurs in the hospital. The goal is rapid activation of a team of experts who can reach a single consensus recommendation.
At MGH and UCLA, a similar relatively simple scheme has been created to guide physicians on how to activate the PERT and which situations make this appropriate.
“A big part of the PERT value has been our ability to conduct a real-time virtual consultation where we leverage online technology to look at images together in order to agree on a strategy,” Dr. Channick explained.
Although frequently asked what specialists are needed for an effective PERT, Dr. Channick said it depends on institutional structures, the types of specialists available, and, in some cases, the specific characteristics of the patient. In many situations, a pulmonary vascular specialist and an interventional radiologist might be sufficient. In others, team members might include some combination of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a hematologist.
It is also appropriate to include clinicians likely to participate in care following acute treatment of the PE. “One of the most critical values to PERT is the ability to systematically follow patients” after the PE is treated, Dr. Channick said.
So far, there are no data to confirm patients managed with PERT achieve better outcomes than those who are not. Reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs are reasonably anticipated and might eventually be demonstrated, but Dr. Channick said that PERTs already have value.
“I think the efficiency of care is important,”he said. He called PERT a “one-stop shopping” approach to ensuring that multiple strategies are considered systematically.
There are many anecdotal examples of the benefits of shared decision-making for PE treatment. In one, a pulmonary specialist in a PERT team narrowly averted a planned thrombolysis in a patient diagnosed with PE who was actually found to have severe pulmonary fibrosis, according to Dr. Channick.
Not least important, the shared decision-making of a PERT could relieve the burden of difficult choices in complex situations. Bad outcomes in PE can be unavoidable even with optimal therapy.
“To me personally, a very important benefit of being part of a PERT is the feeling that we are all in it together,” Dr. Channick said. “Patients can go from being pretty stable to being dead very quickly.”
The PERT Consortium has sponsored an annual meeting on PE since 2015. It also maintains an ongoing registry for PE data from member institutions. These data are expected to have increasing value for comparing the impact of patient characteristics, treatment strategies, and other variables on outcomes.
For clinicians who are uncertain whether the PE incidence at their institution justifies a PERT, Dr. Channick had some advice. “If you build it, they will clot,” he said, meaning that due to the frequency of PE, a PERT will generally have plenty of work once created.
SOURCE: VEITHSYMPOSIUM
REPORTING FROM THE VEITHSYMPOSIUM
The TWILIGHT of aspirin post-PCI for ACS?
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
PHILADELPHIA – Downshifting to ticagrelor monotherapy after just 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is a winning strategy in high-risk patients who’ve undergone PCI for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome, Usman Baber, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
He presented a prespecified subgroup analysis of the previously reported TWILIGHT study that was restricted to the 4,614 participants with non-ST-elevation ACS who underwent PCI, completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin, and were then randomized double-blind to an additional 12 months on the same regimen or to ticagrelor plus placebo.
The key finding: After a year on ticagrelor monotherapy, the risk of clinically significant or major bleeding was reduced by 53%, compared with the DAPT group, and with no increased risk of ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events, said Dr. Baber, a cardiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
This secondary analysis of the TWILIGHT study was carried out because none of the several prior studies of short-term DAPT followed by an aspirin-free strategy after PCI was double-blind. Nor did any include patients with non-ST-elevation ACS, he explained.
The TWILIGHT substudy included 2,494 participants with unstable angina and 2,120 with non-ST-elevation MI. Roughly two-thirds had four or more high-risk clinical or angiographic features, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, multivessel CAD, or left main lesions.
The primary study endpoint at month 15 – the rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events – was 7.6% with ticagrelor plus aspirin, compared with 3.6% with ticagrelor plus placebo, for a highly significant 53% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. The key secondary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, occurred in roughly 4.4% of patients in each study arm.
Of note, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT was associated with a similar 50%-60% reduction in the risk of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding regardless of whether patients had 1-3, 4 or 5, or 6-9 prespecified high-risk clinical and angiographic features. Nor was the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy on ischemic events impacted by risk factor burden.
Discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, observed that while the current practice of most cardiologists in patients undergoing stenting in the setting of ACS is 12 months of DAPT followed by discontinuation of the P2Y12 inhibitor and indefinite continuation of aspirin, mounting evidence suggests there’s a better approach.
Indeed, the new TWILIGHT findings in patients with non-ST-elevation ACS dovetail nicely with the results of three other recent studies of discontinuing aspirin after 1-3 months versus continuing DAPT with ticagrelor or another P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin. These studies, GLOBAL LEADERS (Lancet. 2018 Sep 15;392[10151]:940-9); SMART CHOICE (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37); and STOPDAPT-2 (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27) included patients undergoing PCI either for stable coronary disease or for ST-elevation MI, but not for non-ST-elevation ACS.
Dr. O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, conducted a meta-analysis including the TWILIGHT ACS trial and the other three studies. In a total population of 29,205 patients, a strategy of dropping aspirin while continuing a P2Y12 inhibitor after 1-3 months of DAPT was associated with a 40% relative risk reduction in major bleeding events when compared with continued DAPT, with no indication of an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. When she looked specifically at the nearly 14,000 post-ACS patients in the studies, the same consistency with respect to outcomes held true: an overall 51% reduction in bleeding, and – if anything – a favorable trend involving an 11% reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, although this difference didn’t reach statistical significance.
“I believe that discontinuation of aspirin markedly reduces bleeding when stopped 1-3 months post PCI for patients initially started on DAPT,” Dr. O’Donoghue declared. “The evidence to date does not indicate that stopping aspirin leads to any increase in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. And these findings now extend to patients with ACS, including those with high-risk clinical and angiographic features.”
The important remaining questions, she added, include the best-choice P2Y12 inhibitor for early monotherapy post-PCI, whether the medication should be continued indefinitely past the 12-month mark, and whether aspirin might be safely discontinued even earlier than at 1-3 months.
“If you are thinking about establishing a clopidogrel monotherapy, you need to keep in mind that there exists significant interpatient variability in terms of pharmacodynamic response,” she noted, adding that platelet function testing or genotyping to identify clopidogrel resistance is worth considering in such patients.
The primary results of the full TWILIGHT study, which included 7,119 randomized patients, have been published (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908419).
The TWILIGHT study was sponsored by AstraZeneca. Dr. Baber reported receiving honoraria from that company as well as Boston Scientific.
Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving institutional research support from a handful of pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Baber U. AHA late breaker.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
GALILEO, GALILEO 4D: Mixed results in post-TAVR anticoagulation
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA – The results of the first randomized prospective trial of an anticoagulation strategy versus standard dual antiplatelet (DAPT) therapy for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) show that routine anticoagulation is not suitable for all comers in a high-risk population.
In the main GALILEO trial of elderly patients after TAVR, those who received an investigational anticoagulation strategy with the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto; Bayer/Janssen) had worse survival and more thromboembolic and bleeding events than patients who received standard DAPT.
However, in the GALILEO 4D substudy of patients who underwent four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) randomized to the two therapies, those in the rivaroxaban arm were less likely to show subclinical leaflet motion abnormalities and leaflet thickening.
Preliminary results from GALILEO were disclosed in an October 3, 2018, “Dear Healthcare Professional” letter from Bayer, and the trial was stopped after a median of 17 months due to safety concerns.
The full data analysis from GALILEO as well as the results from GALILEO 4D were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions to coincide with their publication on Nov. 16, 2019, in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The takeaway message is that, despite the positive imaging finding in GALILEO 4D, “there is no reason to give 10 mg rivaroxaban-based treatment routinely after TAVR in patients who don’t need anticoagulation anyhow,” lead author in the main GALILEO trial, George D. Dangas, MD, PhD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said in an interview.
However, because rivaroxaban had an effect in reducing the clots on leaflets, he said, further investigation is required to determine the optimal therapeutic strategy after TAVR.
Similarly, the assigned discussant for GALILEO, Elaine Hylek, MD, of Boston University said in an interview that “we just don’t know right now what the overall added benefit of an oral anticoagulant would be in this high-risk patient population after having a TAVR.”
Ole De Backer, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet University Hospital, Copenhagen, lead author of the GALILEO 4D substudy, concluded that, although the rivaroxaban-based strategy was associated with fewer valve abnormalities in this analysis, those positive outcomes need to be taken in context with worse clinical outcomes in the main GALILEO trial.
GALILEO
Guidelines recommend DAPT after TAVR, but this advice is based on expert consensus or small studies, the GALILEO study authors noted. Several years ago, there were random case reports and then case series of patients who had undergone TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and developed clots around the valve, Dr. Dangas explained.
These developments coincided with the first available high-quality CT angiography images that captured valve abnormalities that had not been seen before.
In parallel, there were rare reports of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) that may have been associated with TAVR or SAVR. This triggered a series of studies to investigate an anticoagulation strategy after TAVR.
From December 2015 to May 2018, GALILEO enrolled 1,644 patients at 136 sites in 16 countries who had undergone successful TAVR, and had no indication for an anticoagulant (e.g., no atrial fibrillation).
The patients had a mean age of 80.6 years (plus or minus 6.6 years) and 49.5% were female. The median time from TAVR to randomization was 2 days (range, 0-8 days).
Half were randomized to receive an antithrombotic strategy, rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily plus aspirin 75-100 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by rivaroxaban alone. The other half received an antiplatelet-based strategy, aspirin 75-100 mg once daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for the first 90 days followed by aspirin alone.
In the intention-to-treat analysis, death or first thromboembolic event, the primary efficacy outcome, occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.81; P = .04).
Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding, the primary safety outcome, occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (HR, 1.50; P = .08).
A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13-2.53).
The individuals who were enrolled in this study were 80 and older, Dr. Hylek pointed out. “The age in and of itself is an uncontested risk factor for everything, whether it be bleeding, embolic event, or obviously mortality.”
Although the dose was half that used to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, perhaps a “twice-daily lower dose” might be the way to go, moving forward, she said.
Patients who did not have atrial fibrillation may have developed atrial fibrillation in the interim, and “you would have to change the dose of the rivaroxaban.”
Also, patients who may have been taking aspirin for 5 or 10 years and “survived” aspirin, who were then newly exposed to an anticoagulant, would be more likely to experience bleeding.
“I certainly wouldn’t close the door on novel anticoagulants,” she concluded. “There are still other drug trials that are out there with this TAVR population. We’ll wait for that,” and see if the results corroborate these findings.
The high-risk patients may turn out to be a potential niche group for drugs being developed to inhibit factor XIa, she speculated.
GALILEO 4D
However, despite the negative results of the overall GALILEO study, results from the substudy that used 4DCT to evaluate function of the bioprosthetic aortic valves suggested rivaroxaban may have potentially beneficial effects on valve function.
The results showed that patients on the rivaroxaban and aspirin regimen had lower rates of subclinical reduced leaflet motion and leaflet thickening than patients on the antiplatelet strategy, said Dr. De Backer, reporting on behalf of the GALILEO-4D investigators.
The substudy evaluated 205 patients who had 4DCT 90 days after TAVR. The primary substudy endpoint was at least one prosthetic valve leaflet with a grade 3 or higher motion reduction, which 2 of 97 patients in the rivaroxaban group had (2.1%) versus 11 of 101 in the antiplatelet group (10.9%, P = .01).
“This indicated an 80% greater reduction of the primary endpoint in the rivaroxaban arm,” Dr. De Backer said. The chief secondary endpoint, the proportion of patients with at least one thickened leaflet, was met by 12.4% of the rivaroxaban group and 32.4% of the antiplatelet arm, “a 60% significant reduction by rivaroxaban,” Dr. De Backer said.
However, when the 10 patients in each group who didn’t adhere to the study drug regimen were excluded, he said, “then we see no single patient had reduced leaflet motion of grade 3 or more in the rivaroxaban arm.”
Another takeaway from the substudy is the ineffectiveness of transthoracic echocardiography as opposed to 4DCT in TAVR patients. Echocardiography (ECG) failed to show any significant differences in the mean valve gradient between the treatment groups, Dr. De Backer said.
Eleven patients who didn’t have leaflet thickening (7.3%) and 7 patients who did (15.9%) showed an increase of 5 mm Hg or more in the mean valve gradient on echo. ECG also showed a similar increase in the mean valve gradient in 14 patients who had no to moderate reduced leaflet motion (grade 3 or lower, 7.7%) and in four patients (30.8) who had grade 3 or higher reduced leaflet motion.
“This basically confirms results from observational studies that transthoracic echocardiography is often not good enough to detect these phenomena,” Dr. De Backer said.
The percentages of substudy patients who had major clinical events – major bleeding, thromboembolic events, or death at 90 days – were each less than 3%, he said. “There were too few clinical events to permit any assessment of the impact of leaflet thickening or reduced leaflet motion on clinical outcomes,” he said.
That lack of clarity with regard to clinical events is one of the questions the study leaves unanswered, said discussant Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, of Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“With stroke or TIA, there are too few events to draw any conclusions,” she said of the substudy. “We don’t know when we need to use CT, when we need to evaluate these patients, or maybe when we should go for more advanced imaging techniques where we can see the biology of those changes in the leaflets.” Hopefully, she said, future studies provide those insights.
“CT can be more sensitive than ECG to see these subclinical changes,” she said, “but the open questions that we have are to see if there is a correlation between thrombosis rate on imaging versus the stroke rate.”
The substudy’s conclusion on ECG, however, has been borne out by previous retrospective studies, Dr. Delgado added.
Robert A. Harrington, MD, of Stanford Medicine, tried to put the seemingly conflicting findings of the main GALILEO study and the 4D substudy into context.
“There you have the disconnect between the mechanism and the clinical observation and those are sometimes difficult to reconcile because the assumption is that the mechanism leads to the clinical outcome.”
While the main study shows that routine anticoagulation after TAVR is not indicated, the findings raise questions about the risk of clots forming on bioprosthetic valves. “Yes, maybe there are clots forming on these valves, but maybe that’s not causing the bad clinical outcomes,” Dr. Harrington said.
The findings also raise questions about the use of newer anticoagulants to prevent stroke post TAVR, he said. “It appears that warfarin is better than the newer anticoagulants for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.”
Dr. Dangas, lead author of the main GALILEO trial, said the substudy results could help design future trials of even-lower doses of anticoagulation in a more selective group of TAVR patients.
“In order to decrease the clots, first of all you don’t need the full dose of anticoagulation; even a low dose may do the trick,” he said. Further investigations can evaluate the clinical significance of having a blood clot in the valve as an indication for anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
“Even though this obviously doesn’t mean you’re going to have a stroke in a year or two,” Dr. Dangas said, “could it perhaps mean that the valve is not going to have such a good durability later on?”
Perhaps future studies of anticoagulation in TAVR should concentrate on patients who actually have clotting in the valve, he said.
The trial was supported by Bayer and Janssen. Dr. Dangas reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Bayer and Janssen, grants and personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, and “other” funding from Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr. De Backer reported receiving grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Dangas GD and De Backer O. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 3 session.
This article also appears on Medscape.com.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Smokers with PE have higher rate of hospital readmission
NEW ORLEANS – , according to a retrospective study.
The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.
“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.
Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).
The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.
Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).
The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).
The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).
“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”
Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.
NEW ORLEANS – , according to a retrospective study.
The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.
“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.
Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).
The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.
Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).
The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).
The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).
“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”
Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.
NEW ORLEANS – , according to a retrospective study.
The rate of readmission was significantly higher among patients with tobacco dependence, and tobacco dependence was independently associated with an increased risk of readmission.
“This is the first study to quantify the increased rate of hospital readmission due to smoking,” said study investigator Kam Sing Ho, MD, of Mount Sinai St. Luke’s and Mount Sinai West, New York.
Dr. Ho and colleagues described this study and its results in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
The researchers analyzed data on 168,891 hospital admissions of adults with PE, 34.2% of whom had tobacco dependence. Patients with and without tobacco dependence were propensity matched for baseline characteristics (n = 24,262 in each group).
The 30-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with tobacco dependence than in those without it – 11.0% and 8.9%, respectively (P less than .001). The most common reason for readmission in both groups was PE.
Dr. Ho said the higher readmission rate among patients with tobacco dependence might be explained by the fact that smokers have a higher level of fibrinogen, which may affect blood viscosity and contribute to thrombus formation (Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2[1]:71-7).
The investigators also found that tobacco dependence was an independent predictor of readmission (hazard ratio, 1.43; P less than .001). And the mortality rate was significantly higher after readmission than after index admission – 6.27% and 3.15%, respectively (P less than .001).
The increased risk of readmission and death among smokers highlights the importance of smoking cessation services. Dr. Ho cited previous research suggesting these services are underused in the hospital setting (BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2014;3[1]:u204964.w2110).
“Given that smoking is a common phenomenon among patients admitted with pulmonary embolism, we suggest that more rigorous smoking cessation services are implemented prior to discharge for all active smokers,” Dr. Ho said. “[P]atients have the right to be informed on the benefits of smoking cessation and the autonomy to choose. Future research will focus on implementing inpatient smoking cessation at our hospital and its effect on local readmission rate, health resources utilization, and mortality.”
Dr. Ho has no relevant relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Ho KS et al. CHEST 2019 October. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1551.
REPORTING FROM CHEST 2019
Aspirin for primary prevention reduces risk of CV events, increases bleeding
Background: Aspirin is beneficial in secondary prevention of stroke and MI. There is no consensus on its role in primary prevention of the same.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: PubMed and Embase search on Cochrane from the earliest publication available through Nov. 1, 2018.
Synopsis: This meta-analysis included randomized, controlled trials that compared aspirin use versus no aspirin use in more than 1,000 participants without known cardiovascular (CV) disease. The primary CV outcome was a composite of CV mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was major bleeding (defined by individual studies). Thirteen studies enrolling 164,225 participants and including 1,050,511 participant-years were included. Compared with no aspirin use, aspirin use showed a reduction in composite CV outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; number needed to treat, 265) and an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.30-1.56; number needed to harm, 210). Limitations of the study include variations in data quality, outcome definitions, and aspirin doses among trials. The study authors advocate for including the lower risk of CV events and increased risk of major bleeding as part of discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Bottom line: Aspirin for primary prevention lowers risk of CV events and increases risk of major bleeding. Health care providers should include this as part of informed decision-making discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Citation: Zheng S et al. Association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):277-87.
Dr. Radhakrishnan is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Background: Aspirin is beneficial in secondary prevention of stroke and MI. There is no consensus on its role in primary prevention of the same.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: PubMed and Embase search on Cochrane from the earliest publication available through Nov. 1, 2018.
Synopsis: This meta-analysis included randomized, controlled trials that compared aspirin use versus no aspirin use in more than 1,000 participants without known cardiovascular (CV) disease. The primary CV outcome was a composite of CV mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was major bleeding (defined by individual studies). Thirteen studies enrolling 164,225 participants and including 1,050,511 participant-years were included. Compared with no aspirin use, aspirin use showed a reduction in composite CV outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; number needed to treat, 265) and an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.30-1.56; number needed to harm, 210). Limitations of the study include variations in data quality, outcome definitions, and aspirin doses among trials. The study authors advocate for including the lower risk of CV events and increased risk of major bleeding as part of discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Bottom line: Aspirin for primary prevention lowers risk of CV events and increases risk of major bleeding. Health care providers should include this as part of informed decision-making discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Citation: Zheng S et al. Association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):277-87.
Dr. Radhakrishnan is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Background: Aspirin is beneficial in secondary prevention of stroke and MI. There is no consensus on its role in primary prevention of the same.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: PubMed and Embase search on Cochrane from the earliest publication available through Nov. 1, 2018.
Synopsis: This meta-analysis included randomized, controlled trials that compared aspirin use versus no aspirin use in more than 1,000 participants without known cardiovascular (CV) disease. The primary CV outcome was a composite of CV mortality, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was major bleeding (defined by individual studies). Thirteen studies enrolling 164,225 participants and including 1,050,511 participant-years were included. Compared with no aspirin use, aspirin use showed a reduction in composite CV outcomes (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; number needed to treat, 265) and an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.30-1.56; number needed to harm, 210). Limitations of the study include variations in data quality, outcome definitions, and aspirin doses among trials. The study authors advocate for including the lower risk of CV events and increased risk of major bleeding as part of discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Bottom line: Aspirin for primary prevention lowers risk of CV events and increases risk of major bleeding. Health care providers should include this as part of informed decision-making discussions with patients about the use of aspirin for primary prevention.
Citation: Zheng S et al. Association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):277-87.
Dr. Radhakrishnan is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Patient-reported complications regarding PICC lines after inpatient discharge
Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.
Study design: Prospective longitudinal study.
Setting: Medical inpatient wards at four U.S. hospitals in Michigan and Texas.
Synopsis: Standardized questionnaires were completed by 438 patients who underwent PICC line placement during inpatient hospitalization within 3 days of placement and at 14, 30, and 70 days. The authors found that 61.4% of patients reported at least one possible PICC-related complication or complaint. A total of 17.6% reported signs and symptoms associated with a possible bloodstream infection; however, a central line–associated bloodstream infection was documented in only 1.6% of patients in the medical record. Furthermore, 30.6% of patients reported possible symptoms associated with deep venous thrombosis (DVT), which was documented in the medical record in 7.1% of patients. These data highlight that the frequency of PICC-related complications may be underestimated when relying solely on the medical record, especially when patients receive follow-up care at different facilities. Functionally, 26% of patients reported restrictions in activities of daily living and 19.2% reported difficulty with flushing and operating the PICC.
Bottom line: More than 60% of patients with PICC lines report signs or symptoms of a PICC-related complication or an adverse impact on physical or social function.
Citation: Krein SL et al. Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multicenter prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 25. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008726.
Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.
Study design: Prospective longitudinal study.
Setting: Medical inpatient wards at four U.S. hospitals in Michigan and Texas.
Synopsis: Standardized questionnaires were completed by 438 patients who underwent PICC line placement during inpatient hospitalization within 3 days of placement and at 14, 30, and 70 days. The authors found that 61.4% of patients reported at least one possible PICC-related complication or complaint. A total of 17.6% reported signs and symptoms associated with a possible bloodstream infection; however, a central line–associated bloodstream infection was documented in only 1.6% of patients in the medical record. Furthermore, 30.6% of patients reported possible symptoms associated with deep venous thrombosis (DVT), which was documented in the medical record in 7.1% of patients. These data highlight that the frequency of PICC-related complications may be underestimated when relying solely on the medical record, especially when patients receive follow-up care at different facilities. Functionally, 26% of patients reported restrictions in activities of daily living and 19.2% reported difficulty with flushing and operating the PICC.
Bottom line: More than 60% of patients with PICC lines report signs or symptoms of a PICC-related complication or an adverse impact on physical or social function.
Citation: Krein SL et al. Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multicenter prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 25. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008726.
Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Background: Despite the rise in utilization of PICC lines, few studies have addressed complications experienced by patients following PICC placement, especially subsequent to discharge from the inpatient setting.
Study design: Prospective longitudinal study.
Setting: Medical inpatient wards at four U.S. hospitals in Michigan and Texas.
Synopsis: Standardized questionnaires were completed by 438 patients who underwent PICC line placement during inpatient hospitalization within 3 days of placement and at 14, 30, and 70 days. The authors found that 61.4% of patients reported at least one possible PICC-related complication or complaint. A total of 17.6% reported signs and symptoms associated with a possible bloodstream infection; however, a central line–associated bloodstream infection was documented in only 1.6% of patients in the medical record. Furthermore, 30.6% of patients reported possible symptoms associated with deep venous thrombosis (DVT), which was documented in the medical record in 7.1% of patients. These data highlight that the frequency of PICC-related complications may be underestimated when relying solely on the medical record, especially when patients receive follow-up care at different facilities. Functionally, 26% of patients reported restrictions in activities of daily living and 19.2% reported difficulty with flushing and operating the PICC.
Bottom line: More than 60% of patients with PICC lines report signs or symptoms of a PICC-related complication or an adverse impact on physical or social function.
Citation: Krein SL et al. Patient-reported complications related to peripherally inserted central catheters: A multicenter prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 25. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008726.
Dr. Cooke is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
Thromboembolic events more likely among CIDP patients with CVAD
AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.
Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.
Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.
The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.
Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).
In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).
Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.
The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.
The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.
SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.
AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.
Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.
Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.
The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.
Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).
In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).
Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.
The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.
The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.
SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.
AUSTIN, TEX. – Patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) who receive intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) appear to have an increased risk of thromboembolic events if it is administered with a central venous access device (CVAD) when compared against those without a CVAD, according to a recent study.
Although CVADs can reliably deliver IVIg, they also represent an established risk factor for thromboembolic events, Ami Patel, PhD, a senior epidemiologist at CSL Behring, and colleagues noted on their poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
The results suggest a need for physicians to be vigilant about patients’ potential risk factors for thromboembolic events, Dr. Patel said in an interview. Further research is planned, however, because the current study did not control for other risk factors or explore other possible confounding, she said.
Dr. Patel and her associates analyzed U.S. claims data (IBM/Truven MarketScan) from 2006 to 2018 and included all patients with a CIDP diagnosis claim and a postdiagnosis code for IVIg. A code for CVAD up to 2 months before CIDP diagnosis without removal before IVIg treatment ended determined those with CVAD exposure, and thromboembolic events included any codes related to arterial, venous, or vascular prostheses.
The researchers then compared patients in a case-control fashion, matching each one with a CVAD to five patients of similar demographics without a CVAD. Characteristics used for matching included medical insurance type, prescription data availability, sex, age, geographic region, and years enrolled in the database.
Among 7,447 patients with at least one IVIg claim, 11.8% (n = 882) had CVAD exposure and 88.2% (n = 6,565) did not. Of those without a CVAD, 3,642 patients were matched to patients with CVAD. A quarter (25.4%) of patients with a CVAD had a thromboembolic event, compared with 11.2% of matched patients without CVADs (P less than .0001).
In the year leading up to IVIg therapy, 16.9% of those with a CVAD and 10.9% of matched patients without one had a previous thromboembolic event (P less than .0001). Patients with a CVAD also had significantly higher rates of hypertension (51.9% vs. 45.0% with placebo; P less than .001) and anticoagulation therapy (7.0% vs. 5.2% with placebo; P less than .05). Differences between the groups were not significant for diabetes (26.9% vs. 24.2%) and hyperlipidemia (19.1% vs. 17.8%).
Occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery was the most common arterial thromboembolic outcome, occurring in 5.3% of those with a CVAD and in 2.8% of those without a CVAD. The most common venous thromboembolic event was acute venous embolism and thrombosis of lower-extremity deep vessels, which occurred in 7% of those with a CVAD and in 1.8% of those without.
The researchers also compared inpatient admissions and emergency department visits among those with and without a CVAD; both rates were higher in patients with a CVAD. Visits to the emergency department occurred at a rate of 0.14 events per month for those with a CVAD (2.01 distinct months with a claim) and 0.09 events per month for those without a CVAD (0.65 distinct months with a claim). Patients with a CVAD had 1.44 months with an inpatient admissions claim, in comparison with 0.41 months among matched patients without a CVAD. Inpatient admission frequency per month was 0.14 for those with a CVAD and 0.08 for those without.
The research was funded by CSL Behring. Dr. Patel and two of the other five authors are employees of CSL Behring.
SOURCE: Patel A et al. AANEM 2019, Abstract 94.
REPORTING FROM AANEM 2019
How should anticoagulation be managed in a patient with cirrhosis?
DOACs may be a practical option for some CLD patients
Case
A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m2. He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?
Brief overview
Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.1
While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.
Overview of the data
VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.2 A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”2
In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.3 Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.4
Prophylaxis
Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).
In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”5 Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.6
Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.7
Treatment
What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.
Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.8 Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.
The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.9 These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.
While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.10 Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.11 DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).
Application of data to the original case
This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.
Bottom line
This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.
References
1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.
2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.
3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.
4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.
5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.
6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.
7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.
8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.
9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.
10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.
11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.
12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.
DOACs may be a practical option for some CLD patients
DOACs may be a practical option for some CLD patients
Case
A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m2. He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?
Brief overview
Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.1
While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.
Overview of the data
VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.2 A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”2
In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.3 Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.4
Prophylaxis
Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).
In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”5 Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.6
Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.7
Treatment
What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.
Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.8 Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.
The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.9 These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.
While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.10 Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.11 DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).
Application of data to the original case
This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.
Bottom line
This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.
References
1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.
2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.
3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.
4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.
5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.
6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.
7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.
8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.
9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.
10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.
11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.
12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.
Case
A 60-year-old man with cirrhosis is admitted to the hospital with concern for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. His body mass index is 35 kg/m2. He is severely deconditioned and largely bed bound. His admission labs show thrombocytopenia (platelets 65,000/mcL) and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.6. Should this patient be placed on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis on admission?
Brief overview
Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have previously been considered “auto-anticoagulated” because of markers of increased bleeding risk, including a decreased platelet count and elevated INR, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. It is being increasingly recognized, however, that CLD often represents a hypercoagulable state despite these abnormalities.1
While cirrhotic patients produce less of several procoagulant substances (such as factors II, V, VII, X, XI, XII, XIII, and fibrinogen), they are also deficient in multiple anticoagulant factors (such as proteins C and S and antithrombin) and fibrinolytics (plasminogen). While the prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time are sensitive to levels of procoagulant proteins in plasma, they do not measure response to the natural anticoagulants and therefore do not reflect an accurate picture of a cirrhotic patient’s risk of developing thrombosis. In addition, cirrhotic patients have many other risk factors for thrombosis, including poor functional status, frequent hospitalization, and elevated estrogen levels.
Overview of the data
VTE incidence among patients with CLD has varied across studies, ranging from 0.5% to 6.3%.2 A systemic review of VTE risk in cirrhotic patients concluded that they “have a significant risk of VTE, if not higher than noncirrhotic patients and this risk cannot be trivialized or ignored.”2
In a nationwide Danish case-control study, patients with cirrhosis had a 1.7 times increased risk of VTE, compared with the general population.3 Hypoalbuminemia appears to be one of the strongest associated risk factors for VTE in these patients, likely as a reflection of the degree of liver synthetic dysfunction (and therefore decreased synthesis of anticoagulant factors). One study showed that patients with an albumin of less than 1.9 g/dL had a VTE risk five times higher than patients with an albumin of 2.8 g/dL or higher.4
Prophylaxis
Given the increased risks of bleeding and thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis, how should VTE prophylaxis be managed in hospitalized patients? While current guidelines do not specifically address the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients, the Padua Predictor Score, which is used to assess VTE risk in the general hospital population, has also been shown to be helpful in the subpopulation of patients with CLD (Table 1).
In one study, cirrhotic patients who were “high risk” by Padua Predictor score were over 12 times more likely to develop VTE than those who were “low risk.”5 Bleeding risk appears to be fairly low, and similar to those patients not receiving prophylactic anticoagulation. One retrospective case series of hospitalized cirrhotic patients receiving thromboprophylaxis showed a rate of GI bleeding of 2.5% (9 of 355 patients); the rate of major bleeding was less than 1%.6
Selection of anticoagulant for VTE prophylaxis should be similar to non-CLD patients. The choice of agent (low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin) and dosing depends on factors including renal function and bodyweight. If anticoagulation is contraindicated (because of thrombocytopenia, for example), then mechanical prophylaxis should be considered.7
Treatment
What about anticoagulation in patients with a known VTE? Food and Drug Administration safety recommendations are based on Child-Pugh class, although the current data on the safety and efficacy of full dose anticoagulation therapy for VTE in patients with cirrhosis are limited (Table 2). At this point, LMWH is often the preferred choice for anticoagulation in CLD patients. However, some limitations exist including the need for frequent subcutaneous injections and limited reliability of anti–factor Xa levels.
Cirrhotic patients often fail to achieve target anti–factor Xa levels on standard prophylactic and therapeutic doses of enoxaparin. This, however, is likely a lab anomaly as in vitro studies have shown that cirrhotic patients may show an increased response to LMWH despite reduced anti–factor Xa levels.8 Thus, LMWH remains the standard of care for many CLD patients.
The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) such as warfarin for VTE treatment can be difficult to manage. Traditionally CLD patients have been started on lower doses of warfarin but given their already elevated INR, this may lead to a subtherapeutic dose of VKAs. A recent study of 23 patients with cirrhosis demonstrated that a target INR of 2-3 can be reached with VKA doses similar to those in noncirrhotic patients.9 These data support the practice of using the same VKA dosing strategies for CLD patients, and selecting a starting dose based on patient parameters such as age and weight.
While the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for this patient population is still not a common practice, they may be a practical option for some CLD patients. A meta-analysis found that the currently used DOACs have no significant risk of drug-induced hepatic injury.10 Currently, only observational data are available to assess the benefits and risks of bleeding with DOACs in this patient population, as patients with significant liver disease were excluded from the major randomized trials.11 DOACs may also represent a complicated choice for some patients given the effect of liver injury on their metabolism (Table 3).
Application of data to the original case
This patient should be assessed for both risk of VTE and risk of bleeding during the hospital admission. CLD patients likely have a risk of VTE similar to (or even greater than) that of general medical patients. The Padua score for this patient is 4 (bed rest, body mass index) indicating that he is at high risk of VTE. While he is thrombocytopenic, he is not below the threshold for receiving anticoagulation. His INR is elevated but this does not confer any reduced risk of VTE.
Bottom line
This patient should receive VTE prophylaxis with either subcutaneous heparin or LMWH during his hospital admission.
References
1. Khoury T et al. The complex role of anticoagulation in cirrhosis: An updated review of where we are and where we are going. Digestion. 2016 Mar;93(2):149-59.
2. Aggarwal A. Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cirrhotic patients: Systematic review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 May 21;20(19):5737-45.
3. Søgaard KK et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: A nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):96-101.
4. Walsh KA et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47(3):333-9.
5. Bogari H et al. Risk-assessment and pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients with chronic liver disease. Thromb Res. 2014 Dec;134(6):1220-3.
6. Intagliata NM et al. Prophylactic anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism in hospitalized cirrhosis patients is not associated with high rates of gastrointestinal bleeding. Liver Int. 2014 Jan;34(1):26-32.
7. Pincus KJ et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with chronic liver disease and the utility of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Ann Pharmacother. 2012 Jun;46(6):873-8.
8. Lishman T et al. Established and new-generation antithrombotic drugs in patients with cirrhosis – possibilities and caveats. J Hepatol. 2013 Aug;59(2):358-66.
9. Tripodi A et al. Coagulation parameters in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis treated sequentially with low molecular weight heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Oct;48(10):1208-13.
10. Caldeira D et al. Risk of drug-induced liver injury with the new oral anticoagulants: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2014 Apr;100(7):550-6.
11. Qamar A et al. Oral anticoagulation in patients with liver disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 15;71(19):2162-75.
12. Barbar S et al. A risk assessment model for the identification of hospitalized medical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism: The Padua prediction score. J Thromb Haemost. 2010 Nov;8(11):2450-7.
FDA approves rivaroxaban for VTE prevention in hospitalized, acutely ill patients
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.
FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.
While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.
According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.
The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.
“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.
Find the full press release on the Janssen website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.
FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.
While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.
According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.
The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.
“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.
Find the full press release on the Janssen website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.
FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.
While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.
According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.
The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.
“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.
Find the full press release on the Janssen website.
Rivaroxaban trends toward higher thrombotic risk than vitamin K antagonists in APS
suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.
Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.
To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).
Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.
After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).
“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”
The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.
SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.
The recent trial by Ordi-Ros et al. revealed similar findings to a previous trial, TRAPS, by Pengo et al., which compared rivaroxaban with warfarin among patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome and triple positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies. Despite the caveat that TRAPS was prematurely terminated, in both studies, a higher proportion of patients in the rivaroxaban group than the vitamin K antagonist group had thrombotic events, most of which were arterial, whether considering MI or stroke. Furthermore, both studies did not show noninferiority of rivaroxaban versus dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists.
The reasons for this failure of noninferiority remain unclear.
Denis Wahl, MD, PhD, and Virginie Dufrost, MD, are with the University of Lorraine, Nancy, France, and the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy. No conflicts of interest were reported. His remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-2815).
The recent trial by Ordi-Ros et al. revealed similar findings to a previous trial, TRAPS, by Pengo et al., which compared rivaroxaban with warfarin among patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome and triple positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies. Despite the caveat that TRAPS was prematurely terminated, in both studies, a higher proportion of patients in the rivaroxaban group than the vitamin K antagonist group had thrombotic events, most of which were arterial, whether considering MI or stroke. Furthermore, both studies did not show noninferiority of rivaroxaban versus dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists.
The reasons for this failure of noninferiority remain unclear.
Denis Wahl, MD, PhD, and Virginie Dufrost, MD, are with the University of Lorraine, Nancy, France, and the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy. No conflicts of interest were reported. His remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-2815).
The recent trial by Ordi-Ros et al. revealed similar findings to a previous trial, TRAPS, by Pengo et al., which compared rivaroxaban with warfarin among patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome and triple positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies. Despite the caveat that TRAPS was prematurely terminated, in both studies, a higher proportion of patients in the rivaroxaban group than the vitamin K antagonist group had thrombotic events, most of which were arterial, whether considering MI or stroke. Furthermore, both studies did not show noninferiority of rivaroxaban versus dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists.
The reasons for this failure of noninferiority remain unclear.
Denis Wahl, MD, PhD, and Virginie Dufrost, MD, are with the University of Lorraine, Nancy, France, and the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy. No conflicts of interest were reported. His remarks are adapted from an accompanying editorial (Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-2815).
suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.
Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.
To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).
Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.
After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).
“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”
The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.
SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.
suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.
Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.
To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m2) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).
Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.
After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).
“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”
The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.
SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE