Similar Rates Of Stroke Research Articles

Comparative Rates of Stroke and Rehospitalization of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation Following Major Emergency Abdominal Surgery and Patients with Non-perioperative Atrial Fibrillation.

Major emergency abdominal surgery is associated with postoperative complications and high mortality. Long-term outcomes in patients with perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) have recently received increased attention, especially POAF in non-thoracic surgery. This study aimed to compare long-term AF related hospitalization and stroke in patients with POAF in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and in patients with non-perioperative AF. We crosslinked data from Danish nationwide registries and identified all patients who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery (2000-2018) and were diagnosed with POAF, and patients who developed AF in a non-perioperative setting. Patients with POAF were matched in a 1:5 ratio on age, sex, year of AF diagnosis and oral anticoagulation (OAC) status at the beginning of follow-up with patients with non-perioperative AF. From discharge, we examined adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of stroke using multivariable Cox regression analysis. The study population comprised 1,041 (out of 42,021 who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery) patients with POAF and 5,205 patients with non-perioperative AF. The median age was 78 years [interquartile range: 71-84] for those initiated on OAC therapy and 78 years [interquartile range: 71-85] for those not initiated on OAC therapy. During the first year of follow up, POAF was associated with similar rates of stroke as non-perioperative AF (patients initiated on OAC: HR 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.77) and patients not initiated on OAC: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.41-1.15). POAF in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery was associated with similar rates of stroke as non-perioperative AF. These results suggest that POAF not only carry an acute burden but also a long-term burden in patients undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery.

Perioperative atrial fibrillation in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and non-perioperative new onset atrial fibrillation: is there a difference in outcome?

Abstract Background Major emergency abdominal surgery (e.g. ileus, perforation) is relatively common and associated with postoperative complications and mortality. Long-term management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with a secondary precipitant has recently received increased attention. It is further unknown whether the conflicting results regarding long-term outcomes in patients with new onset AF depends on surgical subtype or the arrhythmia itself. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare long-term clinical outcomes (AF related hospitalization, stroke, and mortality) in patients with perioperative new onset AF in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and patients with non-perioperative new onset AF. Methods We crosslinked data from Danish nationwide registries and identified all patients who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery (2000-2018) and were diagnosed with new onset AF perioperatively, and patients who developed new onset AF in a non-perioperative setting. Patients with new onset perioperative AF were matched in a 1:5 ratio on age, sex and year of AF diagnosis with patients with non-perioperative new onset AF. From discharge, we examined unadjusted rates of outcomes and adjusted hazard ratios of outcomes were assessed using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Results The study population comprised 794 (out of 42,021) patients with perioperative new onset AF and 3970 patients with non-perioperative new onset AF (median age of 78 years [interquartile range: 70-83] and 57.3% women in both groups). In general, patients with new-onset perioperative AF had lower comorbid burden compared with patients with non-perioperative new onset AF. During the first month after the hospital admission, 15.0% of the patients with perioperative AF and 36.1% of the patients with new onset AF initiated oral anticoagulation therapy (after 2010, 19.7% and 41.2%, respectively). Two years after discharge, 3.9% of patients with perioperative AF and 5.8% of patients with new onset AF (p = 0.031) had had a stroke, while 32.9% and 40.1% (p = 0.002) had had a new hospitalization with AF. Cumulative incidences of stroke and AF related hospitalization are depicted in the Figure. In the multivariable models, perioperative AF was associated with a similar rate of stroke and lower rate of AF related hospitalization compared with non-perioperative new onset AF (HR 1.03, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.54-1.96 for stroke and HR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50-0.92 for AF related hospitalization, respectively). Conclusion Perioperative new onset atrial fibrillation in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery was associated with long-term similar rates of stroke and lower rates of AF related hospitalization compared with new onset atrial fibrillation in the non-perioperative setting. This study demonstrates a need for more knowledge about the progress of atrial fibrillation in the setting of non-cardiac surgery.Cumulative Incidence - strokeCumulative Incidence - AF_re

Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation and One-year Clinical Outcomes in Patients Following Major Emergency Abdominal Surgery

The prevalence and impact of perioperative atrial fibrillation (AF) during an admission for major emergency abdominal surgery are sparsely examined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the 30-day and 1-year outcomes (AF-related hospitalization, stroke, and all-cause mortality) in patients with and without perioperative AF to their major emergency abdominal surgery. All patients without a history of AF who underwent major emergency abdominal surgery from 2000 to 2019 and discharged alive were identified using Danish nationwide registries. Patients with and without perioperative AF (defined as new-onset AF during the index hospitalization) were matched 1:4 on age, gender, year of surgery, and type of surgery. The cumulative incidences and hazard ratios of outcomes were assessed using a multivariable Cox regression analysis comparing patients with and without perioperative AF. A total of 2% of patients were diagnosed with perioperative AF. The matched cohort comprised 792 and 3,168 patients with and without perioperative AF, respectively (median age 78years [twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile 70 to 83years]; 43% men). Cumulative incidences of AF-related hospitalizations, stroke, and mortality 1 year after discharge were 30% versus 3.4%, 3.4% versus 2.7%, and 35% versus 22% in patients with and without perioperative AF, respectively. The 30-day outcomes were similarly elevated among patients with perioperative AF. Perioperative AF during an admission for major emergency abdominal surgery was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year rates of AF-related hospitalization and mortality and similar rates of stroke. These findings suggest that perioperative AF is a prognostic marker of increased morbidity and mortality in relation to major emergency abdominal surgery and warrants further investigation.

Real-world Experience in Managing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Renal Impairment; Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin.

The use of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses the risk of over- or underdosing. We aimed to compare rivaroxaban and warfarin in AF patients with moderate and severe renal impairment. This retrospective study was conducted between 2015 and 2016 to compare the use of warfarin (n = 164) and rivaroxaban (n = 149) in patients with AF and moderate or severe CKD. The study outcomes were survival, stroke, and major bleeding events. The median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range: 23-60). Thirty-six patients had major bleeding: 24 with rivaroxaban and 12 with warfarin (P = 0.01). The rivaroxaban group had major bleeding in 3 patients with moderate CKD, 4 with severe CKD, and 17 on dialysis. Multivariable analysis of factors affecting major bleeding revealed that warfarin use lowered the risk of bleeding (hazard ratio: 0.34; P = 0.004). Stroke occurred in 14 patients: 6 in the rivaroxaban group and 8 in the warfarin group (P = 0.44). Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89%, 77%, and 71% with warfarin and 99%, 94%, and 88% with rivaroxaban, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed higher mortality in patients with lower creatinine clearance and those on warfarin. The safety of warfarin could be better than rivaroxaban in patients with CKD with fewer bleeding complications but similar stroke rates. Further studies on rivaroxaban dosing in patients on dialysis are required.

PO-02-173 TRENDS IN COVID-19 AND ATRIAL FIBRILLATION: A NATIONAL INPATIENT SAMPLE TREND FROM 2020

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in the United States. Concomitant Covid-19 infection and the outcomes of AF are unknown. The study's goals were to analyze the outcomes of AF during the Covid-19 pandemic. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the 2020 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) of Adults (>18 years) hospitalized for AF as the primary admitting diagnosis based on the ICD-10 codes and stratified these groups into concomitant covid-19 infection vs. non-covid-19 infection. All-cause mortality was our primary outcome, while the rate of ICU admission, length of stay, hospital charges were our secondary outcomes. Temporal trends were assessed using logistic regression. In 2020, there were 1,994,985 admissions for atrial fibrillation, out of whom 104,495 (5.3%) had concomitant Covid-19. In the 104,495 AF admissions with covid-19, the mean age was 75y and 56.8% were males. Our results, image 1, showed AF with and without concomitant Covid-19 had similar rates of comorbid conditions including HTN, DM, OSA, CAD. HFrEF, and ESRD. AF patients with Covid-19 infection had a lower prevalence of smoking (31.83% vs. 39.4%, p<.001) and alcohol use (2% vs. 4.2%, p<.001). AF patients from both groups had similar rates of stroke (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p<.001). New AF patients with concomitant Covid-19 had worsening in-hospital outcomes such as shock (12.8% vs. 3.7%, p<.001), admission to the ICU (18.1% vs. 6.4%, p<0.001), higher all-cause mortality (21.8% vs. 3.9%, p<0.001), a longer length of stay (9.96 days vs 6.08 days, p<.001), and total hospital costs ($114,387 vs. $85,830, p<.0001). The incidence of AF catheter ablation on initial hospital admission for AF Covid-19 was lower compared to the AF non-covid-19 patients (.08% vs. 1.39%, p<.001). In 2020, Covid-19 infection was an independent predictor of higher all-cause mortality, length of stay, and costs in patients admitted for atrial fibrillation. In addition, these patients were less likely to get catheter ablation on hospital admission.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry

BackgroundValve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. ObjectivesThe authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. MethodsFrom May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. ResultsThe incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis–patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). ConclusionsIn this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis–patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

Is It Safe to Preserve Left Atrial Appendage During Maze Procedure?

The left atrial appendage (LAA) can contribute significantly to LA mechanical contraction. Nevertheless, the preventive effect of LAA occlusion during the maze procedure against cerebral infarction remains controversial. In this study, we compared the surgical, cardiac hemodynamic, and neurologic outcomes between LAA preservation and occlusion performed during the maze procedure. Between January 2015 and August 2021, 252 patients underwent the maze procedure using cryoablation at our medical center. After excluding patients according to our exclusion criteria (i.e., mechanical prosthesis implantation, preexisting LAA thrombus), LAA was preserved in 113 patients (non-occlusion group) and occluded in 75 patients (occlusion group). Outcomes were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). PSM did not reveal significant intergroup differences in baseline characteristics between the non-occlusion (n=53) and occlusion (n=53) groups. During a median follow-up of 44 months, 2 patients in the non-occlusion group (3.8%) experienced ischemic strokes. There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from stroke (p=0.19) and major adverse cardiac events (p=0.43) between the 2 groups. Through echocardiography at 1-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference in LA mechanical contraction was observed between the non-occlusion group and occlusion group (24 of 33 [72.7%] vs. 18 of 37 [48.6%], respectively; p=0.04). In this study, preservation of the LAA during the maze procedure resulted in better LA function than LAA occlusion, with similar rates of stroke.

Carotid endarterectomy is safe for octogenarians

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has demonstrated superior results in stroke risk reduction for patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. However, this benefit has long been questioned for the elderly and high-risk populations. In the present study, we aimed to provide high-volume, single-institution data with long-term follow-up examining the risk factors for postoperative stroke and stroke-free survival stratified by age for asymptomatic and symptomatic patients undergoing CEA. A single-institution retrospective review of 840 consecutive patients who had undergone CEA from 2011 to 2018 was performed, inclusive of both symptomatic and asymptomatic operative indications. The primary end point was perioperative stroke within 30days of surgery. The secondary end points were late stroke, death, and myocardial infarction. Patients aged >80years were compared with those aged<80years to examine freedom from stroke and death. Statistically significant differences were defined as those with P< .05. A total of 840 patients were evaluated with a median follow-up of 416± 1244days. Of the 840 patients, 499 (59%) were men, and 604 (72%) were White. The mean age was 72± 9years, with 202 (24%) aged ≥80years. CEA was performed for symptomatic disease in 305 patients (36%), of whom 143 (47%) had had strokes and 162 (53%) had had transient ischemic attacks. The overall 30-day postoperative stroke rate was 1.0% (eight patients; 0.6% for asymptomatic and 1.6% for symptomatic; P= .147). Compared with younger patients, octogenarians had had a similar stroke rate after CEA (1.5% vs 0.8%; P= .407). Hispanic race was an independent risk factor for postoperative stroke. White race and preoperative statin use both appeared to be protective. Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated decreased a 5-year stroke-free survival in patients aged ≥80years (P= .031). However, overall, the estimated 5-year survival was similar to the U.S. general population across both age groups. CEA for octogenarians is safe and effective for both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations with excellent 30-day outcomes and long-term survival mirroring that of the general population.

Early surgical intervention versus conservative management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveTiming of intervention for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains controversial. To compare the outcomes of early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus watchful waiting (WW) in patients with...

Early intervention versus conservative management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in developed countries. However, the specific timing of intervention for asymptomatic patients with severe AS remains controversial. Purpose To compare the outcomes of early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus watchful waiting (WW) in asymptomatic patients with AS. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in December 2021, for both interventional or observational studies comparing early AVR with WW in the treatment of asymptomatic severe AS. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results Thirteen studies were included in which two were randomised clinical trials. A total of 4,679 patients were included, providing a 1,268 pooled death events (327 in early AVR and 941 in WW). Our meta-analysis showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality for the early-AVR compared with WW group, although with a moderate amount of heterogeneity between studies in the magnitude of the effect (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34, 0.50, P&amp;lt;0.01; I2=60%). An early surgery strategy displayed a significantly lower cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR, 0.33; 95% CI [0.19, 0.56], P&amp;lt;0.01; I 2=64%) and heart failure hospitalisations (pooled OR 0.19; 95% CI [0.10, 0.39], P&amp;lt;0.01, I2=7%). However, both groups had similar rates of stroke (pooled OR 1.30; 95% CI [0.73, 2.29], P=0.36, I2=0%) and myocardial infarction (pooled OR 0.49; 95% CI [0.19, 1.27], P=0.14, I2=0%). Conclusions Our pooled data suggest that an early-AVR strategy is preferable for asymptomatic patients with severe AS. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Using primary care data to assess comparative effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the UK: an observational cohort study

ObjectiveTo compare real-world effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib) for prevention of stroke.Study design and settingA comparative cohort study in UK...

Single Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION: After transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), ischemic/embolic complications and bleeding remain important because it correlates with mortality. The optimal antithrombotic regimen after successful TAVR remains unclear. This study compared the efficacy and safety of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) among post-TAVR patients. METHODS: Extensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Ovid was done for articles published until November 20, 2020. Studies were limited to randomized controlled trials. Outcome measures include stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies. Results were gathered from published articles, journals, and clinical trials. Studies were critically appraised with regard to methods of minimizing bias. All four studies included received a quality scale for meta-analysis overall score of not less than B. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager V5.4. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials with 1086 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the risk of stroke (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [0.54–1.64]), MI (OR, 0.50 [0.18–1.40]), and overall mortality (OR, 1.01 [0.65–1.57]) did not differ significantly between DAPT and SAPT. There was increased risk of bleeding noted with DAPT, thus favoring SAPT (OR, 0.44 [0.30–0.65]). CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent TAVR, DAPT compared with SAPT had similar rates of stroke, MI, and death. Because of lower rates of bleeding, we recommend using single antiplatelet therapy after TAVR. KEYWORDS: TAVR, TAVI, antiplatelet, single antiplatelet therapy, antithrombotic, DAPT

PO-713-05 ISCHEMIC STROKE AFTER PROPHYLAXIS WITH LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE CLOSURE VS NON-WARFARIN ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS: A “REAL-WORLD” MULTICENTER COMPARISON OF STROKE SEVERITY

In randomized trials, strokes occurring in patients who have received left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices have been less severe than in patients receiving warfarin prophylaxis - an observation thought related to warfarin’s higher rate of hemorrhagic stroke (which are known to have worse outcomes). Similar stroke rates have been described with LAAC vs NOACs (non-warfarin oral anticoagulants), but the low hemorrhagic stroke rate of NOACs raises the question of stroke severity between these two therapies. To compare stroke severity in AF patients sustaining ischemic strokes while receiving either LAAC or NOAC prophylaxis. In a retrospective analysis from 6 centers, we evaluated all consecutive AF patients who developed non-procedural (>7 days) ischemic strokes while receiving either LAAC (Watchman or Amulet) or NOAC prophylaxis. The primary outcome was a comparison of stroke severity between groups, based on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at baseline and 3 months post-stroke. Non-disabling stroke was defined as mRS = 0-2; disabling was ≥3 (6=fatal). Compared to NOAC pts (n=89; apixaban 46%, rivaroxaban 40%, dabigatran 14%) LAAC pts (n=98; Watchman 97%, Amulet 3%) were older (77±14 vs 73±11 yrs, p=0.03) with higher CHA2DS2-VASc [5 (4-6) vs 4 (3-5), p=0.001] and HAS-BLED scores [3 (2-4) vs 2 (2-3), p<0.001], and more prior hemorrhagic strokes (18.4% vs 3.4%, p=0.001) - but similar prior ischemic stroke rates (33.7% vs 39.3%, p=0.4). (Table 1) Stroke severity during hospital admission, discharge and at 3 months follow up was lower in the LAAC vs NOAC group (Table 2). Logistic regression revealed both LAAC and concomitant intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) to independently predict mRS at admission, discharge and 3 mo. LAAC also predicted disabling/fatal stroke (mRS≥3) at discharge [OR 0.22, (95% CI 0.10-0.45), p<0.001] and 3 months [OR 0.20, 95% CI (0.09-0.45), p<0.001]. Despite a higher baseline risk profile of the LAAC cohort, ischemic strokes were of less severity after LAAC than while receiving NOACs. Future studies should confirm these findings in larger cohorts, and address the mechanism(s) of differential severity - less embolic burden, less secondary hemorrhage and expansion of brain infarcts, or something else?View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Abstract 11839: Outcomes of Stroke and Bleeding by Class of Anticoagulant Use for Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Active Cancer

Introduction: The choice of anticoagulant for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of active cancer has not been well studied given only a minority of patients with cancer included in clinical trials. Hypothesis: Cancer patients will have similar rates of stroke (CVA), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) when treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) compared to warfarin (VKA) for AF. Methods: A retrospective study was performed at MD Anderson Cancer Center on patients with cancer and AF being treated with VKA or DOAC. The outcomes assessed were overall mortality, CVA, GIB, or ICH and patients were censored at 5 years. 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted to select comparable patients receiving VKA versus DOAC. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted for each outcome. Results: A total of 1133 patients were included in the dataset with mean age of 72 years, 42% women, and 74% received DOAC (57% received apixaban). At 5 year follow up, mortality occurred in 145, CVA in 59, GIB in 59, and ICH in 6 patients. The baseline risk scores were higher for those on VKA compared to DOAC (CHADSVASC 3.5±1.6 vs 3.3±1.7 p=0.04, HASBLED 2.0 ± 1.1 vs 1.8 ± 1.0 p&lt;0.01). After propensity score matching 210 patients were included in each anticoagulant group. Survival analysis showed higher GIB free survival in the DOAC group however no difference was observed for composite GIB, CVA, or ICH (Figure). On multivariate analysis the risk of GIB was higher in the VKA group (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3-7.3); however, risk of mortality (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.7-1.8), CVA (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-1.8), ICH (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.0-2.2), and composite of GIB, CVA, or ICH (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.3) were not different comparing VKA to the DOAC propensity matched group. Conclusion: Patients with active cancer have higher risk of GIB but similar overall survival and risk for composite stroke and bleeding when treated with VKA compared to DOAC for AF.

Single antiplatelet therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Background The performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded considerably during the past decade. Technological advances and refinement in implantation techniques have resulted in improved procedural outcomes, whereas indications are progressively extending toward lower-risk patients. Ischemic/embolic complications and major bleeding remain important and strongly correlate to mortality. In this regard, the optimal antithrombotic regimen after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains unclear. Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) versus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for post Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Search strategy Key Terms: transcatheter aortic valve replacement, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, antiplatelet, single antiplatelet therapy, dual antiplatelet therapy. Selection criteria Four randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing single antiplatelet therapy versus dual antiplatelet therapy for post TAVR patients were included in this study. Method Extensive search of PubMed, Medline, Cochrane and Ovid was done for articles published until November 20, 2020. Studies were limited to RCTs comparing SAPT and DAPT among patients who underwent TAVR. Outcome measures include: stroke, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies. Results were gathered from published articles, journals and clinical trials. Studies were critically appraised with regards to methods of minimizing bias. All four studies included received a quality scale for meta-analysis overall score of not less than B. Statistical analysis was done using Review manager V5.4. Main results Four RCTs with 1086 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the risk of stroke (OR 0.94 [0.54 −1.64]), myocardial infarction (OR 0.50 [0.18–1.40]), and overall mortality (OR 1.01 [0.65–1.57]) did not differ significantly between DAPT and SAPT. There was noted increased risk of bleeding noted with DAPT, thus favoring SAPT (OR 0.44 [0.30–0.65]). Author's conclusions Among patients who underwent TAVR, DAPT compared to SAPT had similar rates of stroke, myocardial infarction and death. Due to lower rates of bleeding, we recommend using single antiplatelet therapy after TAVR. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Transcatheter Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Chest-Directed Radiation Therapy

BackgroundCardiac surgery for radiation-induced valvular disease is associated with adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with a history of chest-directed radiation therapy and aortic stenosis (CRT-AS). ObjectivesWe examined outcomes of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with CRT-AS. MethodsWe identified 69 patients with CRT-AS who underwent TAVR from January 2012 to September 2018. Operative mortality, postoperative morbidities, and length of hospitalization were compared with 117 contemporaneous patients with CRT-AS who underwent isolated SAVR. Age-adjusted survival was evaluated by means of Cox proportional hazards modeling. ResultsCompared with SAVR patients, TAVR patients were older (mean age 75 ± 11.5 vs 65 ± 11.5 years), with more comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease (all P < 0.050). Operative mortality was 4.3% for SAVR vs 1.4% for TAVR (P = 0.41). Most SAVR deaths (4 of 5) occurred in the intermediate-/high-risk group (Society for Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality >3%; P = 0.026). The ratio of observed to expected mortality was better for low-risk SAVR patients and all TAVR patients (0.72 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.86] and 0.24 [95% CI: 0.05-0.51], respectively) compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR patients (2.52 [95% CI: 0.26-4.13]). SAVR patients had significantly longer median intensive care unit and overall length of stay and higher blood transfusion requirements but similar rates of stroke and pacemaker implantation. ConclusionsTAVR was associated with excellent in-hospital outcomes and better survival compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR in patients with CRT-AS. While SAVR still has a role in low-risk patients or those for whom TAVR is unsuitable for technical or anatomical reasons, TAVR is emerging as the standard of care for intermediate-/high-risk CRT-AS patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Different Antithrombotic Strategies after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Network Meta-Analysis.

The optimal pharmacological therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain. We compared efficacy and safety of various antiplatelet and anticoagulant approaches after TAVI by a network meta-analysis. A total of 14 studies (both observational and randomized) were considered, with 24,119 patients included. Primary safety endpoint was the incidence of any bleeding complications during follow-up. Secondary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Efficacy endpoints were stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effects model. The following strategies were compared: dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), oral anticoagulation (OAC), and OAC + SAPT. The mean follow-up was 15 months. In comparison to DAPT, SAPT was associated with a 44% risk reduction of any bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.39-0.80]). SAPT was ranked as the safest strategy for the prevention of any bleeding (p-score: 0.704), followed by OAC alone (p-score: 0.476) and DAPT (p-score: 0.437). Consistent results were observed for major bleeding. The incidence of cardiovascular death and secondary ischemic endpoints did not differ among the tested antithrombotic approaches. In patients with indication for long-term anticoagulation, OAC alone showed similar rates of stroke (OR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.41-2.05], p = 0.83) and reduced occurrence of any bleeding (OR: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.37-0.66], p < 0.01) versus OAC + SAPT. The present network meta-analysis supports after TAVI the use of SAPT in patients without indication for OAC and OAC alone in those needing long-term anticoagulation.

Anesthetic choice during transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy affects the risk of myocardial infarction

ObjectivePrevious studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. MethodsPatients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group. ResultsA total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13). ConclusionsThe results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients.

April 2021 Stroke Highlights

April 2021 <i>Stroke</i> Highlights

Editor's Note: A Prospective Study of Neurologic Disorders in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in New York City.

Editor's Note: A Prospective Study of Neurologic Disorders in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in New York City.