Transcatheter heart valve interventions: where are we? Where are we going?

Transcatheter heart valve interventions have transformed the outcomes of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) who are unfavourable candidates for surgery. Technological advances have allowed extension of these interventions to younger or lower risk patients and those with other forms of VHD and may in the future permit earlier treatment of VHD in less symptomatic patients or those with moderate disease. The balance of risks and benefits is likely to differ between lower and higher risk patients, and more evidence is needed to evaluate the net benefit of transcatheter technology in these groups. As academic researchers, clinicians, industry, and patient stakeholders collaborate to research these broader indications for transcatheter valve interventions, it is essential to address (i) device durability and deliverability, (ii) specific anatomical needs (e.g. bicuspid aortic valves, aortic regurgitation, mitral and tricuspid valve disease), (iii) operator training, and (iv) the reinforced importance of the multidisciplinary Heart Team.

A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Whether the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban can prevent thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1644 patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (with aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily for the first 3 months) (rivaroxaban group) or aspirin at a dose of 75 to 100 mg daily (with clopidogrel at a dose of 75 mg daily for the first 3 months) (antiplatelet group). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death or thromboembolic events. The primary safety outcome was major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding. The trial was terminated prematurely by the data and safety monitoring board because of safety concerns.

RESULTS

After a median of 17 months, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 78 patients in the antiplatelet group (incidence rates, 9.8 and 7.2 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio with rivaroxaban, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.81; P = 0.04). Major, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 patients, respectively (4.3 and 2.8 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.37; P = 0.08). A total of 64 deaths occurred in the rivaroxaban group and 38 in the antiplatelet group (5.8 and 3.4 per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.53).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without an established indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily was associated with a higher risk of death or thromboembolic complications and a higher risk of bleeding than an antiplatelet-based strategy. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; GALILEO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02556203.).

Spotlight on unmet needs in stroke prevention: The PIONEER AF-PCI, NAVIGATE ESUS and GALILEO trials

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major healthcare concern, being associated with an estimated five-fold risk of ischaemic stroke. In patients with AF, anticoagulants reduce stroke risk to a greater extent than acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ASA plus clopidogrel. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now a widely-accepted therapeutic option for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF (NVAF). There are particular patient types with NVAF for whom treatment challenges remain, owing to sparse clinical data, their high-risk nature or a need to harmonise anticoagulant and antiplatelet regimens if co-administered. This article focuses on three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that are investigating the utility of rivaroxaban, a direct, oral, factor Xa inhibitor, in additional areas of stroke prevention where data for anticoagulants are lacking: oPenlabel, randomized, controlled, multicentre study explorIng twO treatmeNt stratEgiEs of Rivaroxaban and a dose-adjusted oral vitamin K antagonist treatment (PIONEER AF-PCI); New Approach riVaroxoban Inhibition of factor Xa in a Global trial vs Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS); and Global study comparing a rivAroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy to an antipLatelet-based strategy after transcatheter aortIc vaLve rEplacement to Optimize clinical outcomes (GALILEO). Data from these studies present collaborative efforts to build upon existing registrational Phase III data for rivaroxaban, driving the need for effective and safe treatment of a wider range of patients for stroke prevention.

[Application of a seven-day buprenorphine transdermal patch in multimorbid patients on long-term ibuprofen or diclofenac]

The objective of this study was to evaluate the benefit of a seven-day buprenorphine transdermal patch for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain previously receiving long-term treatment with ibuprofen or diclofenac alone. Data of a subgroup of 703 patients were analysed which were part of a multicenter observational study with 3,295 patients. These patients had previously received ibuprofen or diclofenac and were characterized by older age,the presence of gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal risk factors and the existence of chronic musculoskeletal pain. The switch to the seven-day buprenorphine patch resulted in a clinically significant decrease of the mean pain intensity at rest during the day from 5.3 to 2.9, on physical effort during the day from 7.1 to 3.3, and at night from 4.9 to 1.9 at the end of the study (11-point NRS scale, p<or=0.001). Furthermore, different aspects of everyday functioning improved, such as motility or general activities which are not only relevant for the quality of life but also for the maintenance of self-reliance especially of elderly patients. Overall the seven-day patch proved to very tolerable. In addition, particularly multimorbid patients benefit from opioids such as buprenorphine due to the lack of cardiac, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity. Constant analgesia, improvement of daily activities and reduction of tablets were reported as important advantages of the seven-day patch. In conclusion, the seven-day buprenorphine patch is a valuable therapeutic option for patients with insufficient analgesia on long-term ibuprofen or diclofenac.