Nombela‐Franco, Luis

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.

ABSTRACT Aims The impact of treatment for tricuspid regurgitation (TR) across different levels of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of surgical and transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI) to conservative (medical) management across LVEF categories. Methods and results Patients with severe isolated TR from the TRIGISTRY, a multicentre international registry, were categorized based on LVEF (preserved ejection fraction [pEF]: ≥50%, mildly reduced ejection fraction [mrEF]: 41–49%, and reduced ejection fraction [rEF]: ≤40%). We assessed the impact of treatment modality and procedural success (mild-to-moderate or lower residual TR) on 2-year survival within each LVEF category. Among 2384 patients, 1383 had pEF, 400 had mrEF, and 601 had rEF. Compared to conservative management, surgery (p < 0.0005) and TTVI (p < 0.0001) were associated with a survival benefit in patients with pEF. No significant survival advantage was observed in patients with mrEF (p = 0.28 for both), nor in those with rEF (p = 0.76 and p = 0.22, respectively). Similar results were obtained when surgical and transcatheter interventions were grouped (p < 0.0001, p = 0.17 and p = 0.29 in patients with pEF, mrEF and rEF, respectively). Patients with residual TR after TTVI exhibited a trend toward worse survival compared to those managed conservatively across all LVEF categories (p = 0.47, p = 0.33 and p = 0.008 in pEF, mrEF and rEF, respectively). Conclusions Transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention, whether surgical or transcatheter-based, was associated with improved survival in patients with pEF but not in those with mrEF or rEF. Residual TR remained a significant prognostic factor across the entire LVEF spectrum. These findings highlight the need for careful patient selection when considering TTVI in individuals with rEF.

ImportancePatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have ischemic stroke despite taking oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) have a very high risk of recurrence. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a mechanical stroke prevention strategy that may provide additional protection in patients with thromboembolic events under OAT.ObjectiveTo compare percutaneous LAAO with continuing OAT alone regarding stroke prevention in patients with AF who had a thromboembolic event despite taking OAT.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study was a propensity score–matched comparison of the STR-OAC LAAO cohort, an international collaboration of 21 sites combining patients from multiple prospective registries of patients who underwent LAAO between 2010 and 2022. STR-OAC LAAO cohort patients who had follow-up longer than 3 months were propensity score–matched to a previously published control cohort comprising patients from an established international collaboration of investigator-initiated prospective studies. This control cohort included patients with nonvalvular AF, recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and follow-up longer than 3 months who were taking OAT before the index event. Analyses were adjusted for imbalances in gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, and CHA2 DS2-VASc score.ExposureLeft atrial appendage occlusion vs continuation of oral anticoagulation therapy alone (control group).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was time to first ischemic stroke.ResultsFour hundred thirty-three patients from the STR-OAC LAAO cohort (mean [SD] age, 72 [9] years; 171 [39%] females and 262 [61%] males; mean [SD] CHA2 DS2-VASc score, 5.0 [1.6]) were matched to 433 of 1140 patients (38%) from the control group. During 2-year follow-up, 50 patients experienced ischemic stroke: an annualized event rate of 2.8% per patient-year in the STR-OAC LAAO group vs 8.9% per patient-year in the control group. Left atrial appendage occlusion was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P < .001) compared with the control group. After LAAO, OAT was discontinued in 290 patients (67%), and the remaining 143 patients (33%) continued OAT after LAAO as an adjunctive therapy.Conclusions and RelevanceIn patients with nonvalvular AF and a prior thromboembolic event despite taking OAT, LAAO was associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke compared with continued OAT alone. Randomized clinical trial data are needed to confirm that LAAO may be a promising treatment option for this population with a very high risk of stroke.

Abstract Background and aims Benefit of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) correction and timing of intervention are unclear. This study aimed to compare survival rates after surgical or transcatheter intervention to conservative management according to a TR clinical stage as assessed using the TRI-SCORE. Methods A total of 2,413 patients with severe isolated functional TR were enrolled in TRIGISTRY (1217 conservatively managed, 551 isolated tricuspid valve surgery, and 645 transcatheter valve repair). The primary endpoint was survival at 2 years. Results The TRI-SCORE was low (≤3) in 32%, intermediate (4–5) in 33%, and high (≥6) in 35%. A successful correction was achieved in 97% and 65% of patients in the surgical and transcatheter groups, respectively. Survival rates decreased with the TRI-SCORE in the three treatment groups (all P < .0001). In the low TRI-SCORE category, survival rates were higher in the surgical and transcatheter groups than in the conservative management group (93%, 87%, and 79%, respectively, P = .0002). In the intermediate category, no significant difference between groups was observed overall (80%, 71%, and 71%, respectively, P = .13) but benefit of the intervention became significant when the analysis was restricted to patients with successful correction (80%, 81%, and 71%, respectively, P = .009). In the high TRI-SCORE category, survival was not different to conservative management in the surgical and successful repair group (61% and 68% vs 58%, P = .26 and P = .18 respectively). Conclusions Survival progressively decreased with the TRI-SCORE irrespective of treatment modality. Compared to conservative management, an early and successful surgical or transcatheter intervention improved 2-year survival in patients at low and, to a lower extent, intermediate TRI-SCORE, while no benefit was observed in the high TRI-SCORE category.

Background Elderly patients have a higher burden of comorbidities that influence clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare in‐hospital outcomes in patients ≥80 years old to younger patients, and to determine the factors associated with increased risk of major adverse events (MAE) after left atrial appendage closure. Methods and Results The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify discharges after left atrial appendage closure between October 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome was in‐hospital MAE defined as the composite of postprocedural bleeding, vascular and cardiac complications, acute kidney injury, stroke, and death. A total of 6779 hospitalizations were identified, of which, 2371 (35%) were ≥80 years old and 4408 (65%) were <80 years old. Patients ≥80 years old experienced a higher rate of MAE compared with those aged <80 years old (6.0% versus 4.6%, P =0.01), and this difference was driven by a numerically higher rate of cardiac complications (2.4% versus 1.8%, P =0.09) and death (0.3% versus 0.1%, P =0.05) among individuals ≥80 years old. In patients ≥80 years old, higher odds of in‐hospital MAE were observed in women (1.61‐fold), and those with preprocedural congestive heart failure (≈2‐fold), diabetes (≈1.5‐fold), renal disease (≈2.6‐fold), anemia (≈2.7‐fold), and dementia (≈5‐fold). In patients <80 years old, a higher risk of in‐hospital MAE was encountered among women (≈1.4‐fold) and those with diabetes (≈1.3‐fold), renal disease (≈2.6‐fold), anemia (≈2‐fold), and dyslipidemia (≈1.2‐fold). Conclusions Patients ≥80 years old had higher rates of in‐hospital MAE compared with patients aged <80 years old. Female sex and the presence of heart failure, diabetes, renal disease, and anemia were factors associated with in‐hospital MAE among both groups.

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.

AbstractObjectivesTo assess the Usefulness of oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) in patients with coronary artery aneurysm (CAA).BackgroundData on the most adequate antithrombotic CAA management is lacking.MethodsPatients included in CAAR (Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry, Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02563626) were selected. Patients were divided in OAT and non‐OAT groups, according to anticoagulation status at discharge and 2:1 propensity score matching with replacement was performed. The primary endpoint of the analysis was a composite and mutual exclusive endpoint of myocardial infarction, unstable angina (UA), and aneurysm thrombosis (coronary ischemic endpoint). Net adverse clinical events, major adverse cardiovascular events, their single components, cardiovascular death, re‐hospitalizations for heart failure, stroke, aneurysm thrombosis, and bleeding were the secondary ones.ResultsOne thousand three hundred thirty‐one patients were discharged without OAT and 211 with OAT. In the propensity‐matched sample (390 patients in the non‐OAT group, 195 patients in the OAT group), after 3 years of median follow‐up (interquartile range 1–6 years), the rate of the primary endpoint (coronary ischemic endpoint) was significantly less in the OAT group as compared to non‐OAT group (8.7 vs. 17.2%, respectively; p = .01), driven by a significant reduction in UA (4.6 vs. 10%, p < .01) and aneurysm thrombosis (0 vs. 3.1%, p = .03), along with a non‐significant reduction in MI (4.1 vs. 7.7%, p = .13). A non‐significant increase in bleedings, mainly BARC type 1 (55%), was found in the OAT‐group (10.3% in the non‐OAT vs. 6.2% in the OAT group, p = .08).ConclusionOAT decreases the composite endpoint of UA, myocardial infarction, and aneurysm thrombosis in patients with CAA, despite a non‐significant higher risk of bleeding.

Coronary artery aneurysm is defined as a coronary dilation that exceeds the diameter of adjacent segments or the diameter of the patient's largest normal coronary vessel by 1.5×. It is an uncommon disease that has been diagnosed with increasing frequency since the widespread appearance of coronary angiography. The published incidence varies from 1.5% to 5%, suggesting male dominance and a predilection for the right coronary artery. Although several causes have been described, atherosclerosis accounts for ≥50% of coronary aneurysms in adults. Reported complications include thrombosis and distal embolization, rupture, and vasospasm, causing ischemia, heart failure, or arrhythmias. The natural history and prognosis remain unknown, as definitive data are scarce. Controversies persist regarding the use of medical management (antithrombotic therapy) or interventional/surgical procedures. Only some case reports or small case series are available about this condition. The Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry (CAAR; http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02563626) is a multicenter international ambispective registry that aims to provide insights on anatomic, epidemiologic, and clinical aspects of this substantially unknown entity. In addition, the registry will assess management strategies (conservative, interventional, or surgical) and their short‐ and long‐term results in a large cohort of patients.Clinical Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02563626.