Kass, Malek

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains to be determined. The objective of this trial was to compare anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for preventing device-related thrombosis (DRT) after LAAC. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter international randomized trial comparing 2 different antithrombotic strategies for preventing DRT after LAAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin+clopidogrel) for 60 days. Patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography at 60 days, and the images were analyzed in a central echocardiography laboratory by experienced echocardiographers blinded to the allocated treatment. The primary outcome was DRT as determined by transesophageal echocardiography 60 days after LAAC in patients receiving the allocated treatment at the time of transesophageal echocardiography (per-protocol analysis). The safety outcome included all-cause mortality, stroke, bleeding, or site-reported DRT within 60 days after LAAC in all randomized patients (intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS: A total of 510 patients (mean age 77±9 years, 35% women) were included between October 2018 and May 2025, and 253 and 257 patients were randomized to the DOAC and DAPT groups, respectively. Of these, 399 patients underwent transesophageal echocardiography and were receiving the allocated treatment at 60 days after LAAC. The primary outcome occurred in 3 patients (1.5%) in the DOAC group compared with 8 patients (4.1%) in the DAPT group (difference, −2.7% [95% CI, −6.0% to 0.6%]; P =0.110). The safety outcome occurred in 52 patients (22.5%) in the DOAC group compared with 82 patients (34.9%) in the DAPT group (difference, −12.4% [95% CI, −20.6% to −4.2%]; P =0.003), and differences were mainly driven by a lower rate of bleeding events in the DOAC group (44 patients [17.4%] versus 64 patients [24.9%]; difference, −7.5% [95% CI, −14.6% to −0.4%]; P =0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of DOACs after LAAC failed to reduce DRT compared with DAPT, but it was associated with an improved safety profile. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of statistical power issues related to the narrower-than-expected between-group differences and will need confirmation in future larger studies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03568890.

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.