Katz, William E.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Abstract Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents a cardiovascular syndrome which can lead to embolic stroke. Several AF clinical trials have shown a decrease risk of stroke with anticoagulation using warfarin. Currently, there are two approaches for anticoagulation in AF patients. For outpatients, warfarin is used with an INR goal 2.0–3.0. For inpatients requiring cardioversion, unfractionated heparin (UFH, IV) is used as a bridge to therapeutic warfarin. More recently, anticoagulation with a low molecular weight heparin, enoxaparin, has been reported to give a more predictable anticoagulant response than UFH in TEEguided cardioversion. The present study compares the markers of inflammation and thrombin generation in patients included in the ACUTE II study. Methods: This was a randomized multicenter trial of 155 patients from 17 clinical sites, the anticoagulant activity of LMWH (enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg sc bid, Sanofi-Aventis, n=76) was compared to that of UFH (APTT 1.5 – 2.5 x control, n=79). Blood samples were drawn at enrollment (baseline), day 2 (peri cardioversion) and day 4 in both groups. Day 2 and day 4 samples were taken 3–4 hours after the injection of LMWH in patients in the LMWH group. Blood samples were evaluated for inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), CD 40 ligand (CD 40L), monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1) and anticoagulant effect: thrombin antithrombin complex (TAT) and prothrombin fragment (F 1.2). Results: The APTT and anti-Xa levels indicated therapeutic anticoagulation was achieved (previously reported). In addition, both TAT and F1.2 levels were increased at baseline and were significantly decreased with LMWH (p<0.01) in comparison to UFH. The CRP, CD40L, MCP-1 were decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. These results suggest that AF patients treated with LMWH demonstrate a stronger anticoagulant effect as measured by a significant reduction in the markers of thrombin generation. Furthermore, anticoagulation with either UFH of LMWH results in a decrease in inflammation which was not different between groups. Conclusion: In the ACUTE II trial, anticoagulation with LMWH in AF patients may be a better alternate than UFH during TEE-guided cardioversion due to a a stronger anticoagulant.