Antiagregación doble frente a simple, con o sin anticoagulación, tras reemplazo percutáneo de válvula aórtica: comparación indirecta y metanálisis

Abstract

Introduction and objectivesThere is uncertainty on the correct management of antithrombotic therapies after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) being currently recommended on an empirical basis. The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the safety and effectiveness of DAPT in patients undergoing TAVR. MethodsStudies comparing different antithrombotic regimens after TAVR were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day overall mortality. ResultsWe included 9 studies, 5 comparing DAPT with aspirin monotherapy and 4 comparing DAPT with monoantiplatelet therapy (MAPT) + oral anticoagulation. Among 7991 patients, 72% were on DAPT. The median follow-up was 3.5 months. Mortality was significantly lower in the DAPT group (12.2% vs 14.4%; OR, 0.81; 95%CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .003; Phet = .93), with similar benefits compared with aspirin monotherapy (OR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.69-0.93; P = .004; Phet = .60), which were not statistically significant when compared with MAPT + oral anticoagulation (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.55-1.35; P = .51; Phet = .97). A similar trend for DAPT was observed for stroke (OR, 0.83 95%CI, 0.63-1.10; P = .20; Phet = .67), with no increase in the rate of major bleedings (OR, 1.69; 95%CI, 0.86-3.31; P = .13; Phet< .0001). On indirect comparison analysis, no benefit in survival, stroke, or bleedings was identified for additional oral anticoagulation. ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis supports the use of DAPT after TAVR, reducing mortality and offering slight benefits in stroke, with no increase in major bleedings compared with MAPT. The strategy of aspirin + oral anticoagulation did not provide significant benefits compared with MAPT or DAPT.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en