Sharma, Sharan Prakash

Antiplatelet agents are the standard of practice in the management of atherosclerosis and acute coronary syndrome. In contrast to the available antiplatelet agents, vorapaxar represents a novel mechanism of action. It is an antagonist of the platelet protease-activated receptor-1 and inhibits thrombin-induced and thrombin receptor agonist peptide-induced platelet aggregation. The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 50 (TRA 2°P-TIMI 50) trial led to the approval of vorapaxar by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or peripheral arterial disease. TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 trial showed that the use of vorapaxar (2.5 mg once/daily) in addition to standard dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor was effective in the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombotic events among patients with previous atherothrombosis, particularly in patients with prior MI; at the expense of an increase in major bleeding. Another recently published Vorapaxar Therapy in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction Treated With Newer Generation P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitors Prasugrel and Ticagrelor (VORA-PRATIC) study showed that among post-MI patients treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor), vorapaxar reduced platelet-driven global thrombogenicity, an effect that persisted, albeit attenuated, in the absence of aspirin. The current review summarizes an up-to-date literature on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical efficacy of vorapaxar and proposes future directions of research.

AbstractObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the feasibility and safety of carotid access transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) by performing a meta‐analysis of published cases.BackgroundSeveral case series and regional data have provided initial basis for carotid access TAVR in patients with prohibitive femoral approach. We performed this meta‐analysis to provide further evidence of feasibility and safety of carotid TAVR.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL for any study on carotid access TAVR involving ⩾5 patients since inception till March 1, 2020. Random‐effects model was used to compute overall effects. The outcomes analyzed were all‐cause mortality, Transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke, need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, pericardial tamponade, access site complications, major bleeding, and length of stay.ResultsThere was a total of 17 retrospective studies (n = 2082) with a median follow‐up of 1 month. Mean age of the patient was 80 years. Mean Euroscore and STS scores were 15 ± 6.2 and 7.9 ± 3.3, respectively. The procedural success rate was 99%. The rate of all‐cause mortality was 6.7% (range 4.6–9.7%, p < .001, I2 = 67%). Incidence of TIA/stroke was 3.9% (range 3.1–4.8%, p < .001, I2 = 0%) and PPM implantation was 16.7% (range 12.5–21.9%, p < .001, I2 = 56%). Rate of pericardial tamponade, vascular complication, and major bleeding were 1.7, 2.5, and 7%, respectively. Average length of hospital stay was 7.7 days.ConclusionOur results show that transcarotid approach is a feasible option in patients with prohibitive femoral access for TAVR.