An Analysis of the Predictors of Major Bleeding After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Transplantation Using the National Inpatient Sample (2015-2018)

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Impact of periprocedural bleeding on mid-term outcome in nonagenarians who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from LAPLACE registry

Data from several recent studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) even in nonagenarians. However, the impact of periprocedural bleeding following TAVI on their outcome remains unclear. In the aLliAnce for exPloring cLinical prospects of AortiC valvE disease (LAPLACE) registry, we compared outcomes between the bleeding and no-bleeding groups among 1953 patients < 90 years old (mean age, 83.0 ± 4.6 years old) and 316 nonagenarians (mean age, 91.7 ± 1.9 years old) who underwent TAVI with a median follow-up period of 628 days. The group with any periprocedural bleeding showed a higher 30-day mortality than the no-bleeding group in patients < 90 years old (3.3% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.001) and nonagenarians (7.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.001). In patients < 90 years old, severe periprocedural bleeding (n = 85) was associated with a higher mid-term all-cause mortality rate than no severe bleeding (n = 1,868), even after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio [HR], 1.994; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.287-2.937; p = 0.002). On the other hand, in nonagenarians, any periprocedural bleeding (n = 38) was associated with a higher mid-term cardiovascular (CV) mortality rate (21.1% vs. 4.3%, log-rank p = 0.014) than no bleeding (n = 278), even after adjusting for covariates (HR, 3.104; 95% CI 1.140-8.449; p = 0.027). In conclusion, any periprocedural bleeding after TAVI was associated with mid-term CV mortality in nonagenarians, whereas severe bleeding was associated with mid-term all-cause mortality in patients < 90 years old.

Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In patients at high risk for haemodynamic instability during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), practitioners are increasingly opting for prophylactic mechanical circulatory support, such as the Impella® heart pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). Though Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) ensures haemodynamic stability during the PCI procedure, access-related complication rates have varied significantly in published studies. Reported variability in complication rates relates to many factors, including anticoagulation practices, access and closure strategy, post-procedure care and variations in event definitions. This article aims to outline optimal strategies to minimize vascular and bleeding complications during Impella-supported HRPCI based on previously identified clinical, procedural and postprocedural risk factors. Practices to reduce complications include femoral skills training, standardized protocols to optimize access, closure, anticoagulation management and post-procedural care, as well as the application of techniques and technological advances. Protocols integrating these strategies to mitigate access-related bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported procedures can markedly limit vascular access risk as a barrier to appropriate large-bore mechanical circulatory support use in HRPCI.

Bleeding risk differences after TAVR according to the ARC-HBR criteria: insights from SCOPE 2

BACKGROUND

The Academic Research Consortium - High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) initiative defined conditions associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding.

AIMS

We sought to further explore these HBR conditions in the setting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

Patients from the SCOPE 2 trial were stratified by their bleeding risk status based on the ARC-HBR definitions. Baseline and procedural characteristics, as well as key clinical outcomes including Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, were compared in ARC-HBR positive (HBR+) and ARC-HBR negative (HBR-) patients.

RESULTS

Of 787 patients randomised in SCOPE 2 and included in this study, 633 were HBR+ (80.4%). Compared with HBR- patients, those HBR+ were older and more frequently presented with diabetes, a history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, prior cerebrovascular accident, and a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of 30-day mortality (STS-PROM) (4.9±2.9% vs 3.3%±2.1%; p<0.0001). In addition, HBR+ patients were more frequently on oral anticoagulation therapy. At 1 year, HBR+ patients had higher rates of all-cause death (12.4% vs 4.3%, respectively, risk difference 8.09%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-12.41; p=0.0002); the rates of BARC 3-5 type bleeding were relatively high but not statistically different compared with HBR- patients (7.7% vs 6.1%, risk difference 1.67%; 95% CI: -2.72 to 6.06; p=0.46). Subgroup analyses for bleeding events showed no significant interaction in terms of STS-PROM score, age, or medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARC-HBR criteria failed to isolate a subgroup of patients at higher bleeding risk in TAVR patients from a randomised trial. These findings have potential implications, especially for the selection of post-TAVR antithrombotic regimens based on individual bleeding-risk profiles. Specific HBR criteria should be defined for TAVR patients.