CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Aortic Valve Stenosis Treatment Disparities in the Underserved JACC Council Perspectives Comparison of safety and periprocedural complications of transfemoral aortic valve replacement under local anaesthesia: minimalist versus complete Heart Team Association of Smoking Status With Long‐Term Mortality and Health Status After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy Prognostic implications of baseline 6‐min walk test performance in intermediate risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement Raising the Evidentiary Bar for Guideline Recommendations for TAVR: JACC Review Topic of the Week Cardiac Structural Changes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Studies

Clinical TrialDecember 2, 2021

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Edoxaban versus Vitamin K Antagonist for Atrial Fibrillation after TAVR

NM Van Mieghem, M Unverdorben, the ENVISAGE-TAVI AF Investigators. Keywords: TAVR; AF; anticoagulation strategy; oral anticoagulation alone vs. oral anticoagulation plus clopidogrel

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The role of direct oral anticoagulants as compared with vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation after successful transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well studied.

METHODS - We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-masked trial comparing edoxaban with vitamin K antagonists in patients with prevalent or incident atrial fibrillation as the indication for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adverse events consisting of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, or major bleeding. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. On the basis of a hierarchical testing plan, the primary efficacy and safety outcomes were tested sequentially for noninferiority, with noninferiority of edoxaban established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.38. Superiority testing of edoxaban for efficacy would follow if noninferiority and superiority were established for major bleeding.

 

RESULTS - A total of 1426 patients were enrolled (713 in each group). The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 47.5% of the patients were women. Almost all the patients had atrial fibrillation before TAVR. The rate of the composite primary efficacy outcome was 17.3 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 16.5 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.31; P=0.01 for noninferiority). Rates of major bleeding were 9.7 per 100 person-years and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.91; P=0.93 for noninferiority); the difference between groups was mainly due to more gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. Rates of death from any cause or stroke were 10.0 per 100 person-years in the edoxaban group and 11.7 per 100 person-years in the vitamin K antagonist group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11).


CONCLUSIONS - In patients with mainly prevalent atrial fibrillation who underwent successful TAVR, edoxaban was noninferior to vitamin K antagonists as determined by a hazard ratio margin of 38% for a composite primary outcome of adverse clinical events. The incidence of major bleeding was higher with edoxaban than with vitamin K antagonists. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ENVISAGE-TAVI AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02943785. )