EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
Bleeding risk differences after TAVR according to the ARC-HBR criteria: insights from SCOPE 2.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Garot Philippe, Neylon Antoinette, Morice Marie-Claude, Tamburino Corrado, Bleiziffer Sabine, Thiele Holger, Scholtz Smita, Schramm Rene, Cockburn James, Cunnington Michael, Wolf Alexander, Barbanti Marco, Tchetché Didier, Pagnotta Paolo, Gilard Martine, Bedogni Francesco, Van Belle Eric, Vasa-Nicotera Mariuca, Chieffo Alaide, Bogaerts Kris, Hengstenberg Christian, Capodanno Davide
Аннотация
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.
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.