BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel as an antiplatelet strategy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is not based on clinical evidence. Here we aim to review updated evidence systemically and assess safety and efficacy of the two antiplatelet regimens. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to retrieve studies involving single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) versus DAPT after TAVR. We screened the records and extracted the data from publications independently. Relative risks (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare the efficacy and safety of SAPT with that of DAPT in fixed-effects model with Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of evidence was assessed by the scoring system, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: A total of 2,489 patients from 8 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Compared with DAPT, SAPT was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (RR =0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P=0.014) and major/life-threatening bleeding (RR =0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.76; P=0.000) in 30 days. Furthermore, there was no significant difference found between SAPT and DAPT group in terms of 30-day stroke (RR =0.85; 95% CI, 0.45-1.63; P=0.631) and death beyond 3 months (RR =0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15; P=0.664). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that compared with DAPT, SAPT after TAVR is more likely to lead to a decline of 30-day mortality along with the reduced risk of bleeding and no increased risk of stroke. However, more clinical data and evidence from randomized controlled trials are warranted to clarify the optimal post-TAVR antiplatelet strategy.
BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel as an antiplatelet strategy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), it is not based on clinical evidence. Here we aim to review updated evidence systemically and assess safety and efficacy of the two antiplatelet regimens. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to retrieve studies involving single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) versus DAPT after TAVR. We screened the records and extracted the data from publications independently. Relative risks (RRs) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare the efficacy and safety of SAPT with that of DAPT in fixed-effects model with Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of evidence was assessed by the scoring system, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). RESULTS: A total of 2,489 patients from 8 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Compared with DAPT, SAPT was associated with a lower all-cause mortality (RR =0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89; P=0.014) and major/life-threatening bleeding (RR =0.62; 95% CI, 0.50-0.76; P=0.000) in 30 days. Furthermore, there was no significant difference found between SAPT and DAPT group in terms of 30-day stroke (RR =0.85; 95% CI, 0.45-1.63; P=0.631) and death beyond 3 months (RR =0.96; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15; P=0.664). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that compared with DAPT, SAPT after TAVR is more likely to lead to a decline of 30-day mortality along with the reduced risk of bleeding and no increased risk of stroke. However, more clinical data and evidence from randomized controlled trials are warranted to clarify the optimal post-TAVR antiplatelet strategy.
Authors: Rick A Nishimura; Catherine M Otto; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Robert A Guyton; Patrick T O'Gara; Carlos E Ruiz; Nikolaos J Skubas; Paul Sorajja; Thoralf M Sundt; James D Thomas Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A Pieter Kappetein; Stuart J Head; Philippe Généreux; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Eugene H Blackstone; Thomas G Brott; David J Cohen; Donald E Cutlip; Gerrit-Anne van Es; Rebecca T Hahn; Ajay J Kirtane; Mitchell W Krucoff; Susheel Kodali; Michael J Mack; Roxana Mehran; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Pascal Vranckx; John G Webb; Stephan Windecker; Patrick W Serruys; Martin B Leon Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Sumeet Gandhi; Jon-David R Schwalm; James L Velianou; Madhu K Natarajan; Michael E Farkouh Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Eugenio Stabile; Armando Pucciarelli; Linda Cota; Giovanni Sorropago; Tullio Tesorio; Luigi Salemme; Grigore Popusoi; Vittorio Ambrosini; Angelo Cioppa; Marco Agrusta; Donato Catapano; Cesare Moscariello; Bruno Trimarco; Giovanni Esposito; Paolo Rubino Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Petra Poliacikova; James Cockburn; Adam de Belder; Uday Trivedi; David Hildick-Smith Journal: J Invasive Cardiol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.022
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael J Mack; Raj R Makkar; Lars G Svensson; Susheel K Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; E Murat Tuzcu; D Craig Miller; Howard C Herrmann; Darshan Doshi; David J Cohen; Augusto D Pichard; Samir Kapadia; Todd Dewey; Vasilis Babaliaros; Wilson Y Szeto; Mathew R Williams; Dean Kereiakes; Alan Zajarias; Kevin L Greason; Brian K Whisenant; Robert W Hodson; Jeffrey W Moses; Alfredo Trento; David L Brown; William F Fearon; Philippe Pibarot; Rebecca T Hahn; Wael A Jaber; William N Anderson; Maria C Alu; John G Webb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245