Search

Background Scarce data are available comparing infective endocarditis (IE) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical presentation, microbiological profile, management, and outcomes of IE after SAVR versus TAVR. Methods Data were collected from the "Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International" (enrollment from 2005 to 2020) and the "International Collaboration on Endocarditis" (enrollment from 2000 to 2012) registries. Only patients with an IE affecting the aortic valve prosthesis were included. A 1:1 paired matching approach was used to compare patients with TAVR and SAVR. Results A total of 1688 patients were included. Of them, 602 (35.7%) had a surgical bioprosthesis (SB), 666 (39.5%) a mechanical prosthesis, 70 (4.2%) a homograft, and 350 (20.7%) a transcatheter heart valve. In the SAVR versus TAVR matched population, the rate of new moderate or severe aortic regurgitation was higher in the SB group (43.4% vs 13.5%; P <.001), and fewer vegetations were diagnosed in the SB group (62.5% vs 82%; P <.001). Patients with an SB had a higher rate of perivalvular extension (47.9% vs 27%; P <.001) and Staphylococcus aureus was less common in this group (13.4% vs 22%; P =.033). Despite a higher rate of surgery in patients with SB (44.4% vs 27.3%; P <.001), 1-year mortality was similar (SB: 46.5%; TAVR: 44.8%; log-rank P =.697). Conclusions Clinical presentation, type of causative microorganism, and treatment differed between patients with an IE located on SB compared with TAVR. Despite these differences, both groups exhibited high and similar mortality at 1-year follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Procedural improvements combined with the contemporary clinical profile of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may have influenced the incidence and outcomes of infective endocarditis (IE) following TAVR. We aimed to determine the temporal trends, characteristics, and outcomes of IE post-TAVR. Methods Observational study including 552 patients presenting definite IE post-TAVR. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to the timing of TAVR (historical cohort [HC]: before 2014; contemporary cohort [CC]: after 2014). Results Overall incidence rates of IE were similar in both cohorts (CC vs HC: 5.45 vs 6.52 per 1000 person-years; P  = .12), but the rate of early IE was lower in the CC (2.29‰ vs 4.89‰, P  < .001). Enterococci were the most frequent microorganism. Most patients presented complicated IE (CC: 67.7%; HC: 69.6%; P  = .66), but the rate of surgical treatment remained low (CC: 20.7%; HC: 17.3%; P  = .32). The CC exhibited lower rates of in-hospital acute kidney injury (35.1% vs 44.6%; P  = .036) and in-hospital (26.6% vs 36.4%; P  = .016) and 1-year (37.8% vs 53.5%; P  < .001) mortality. Higher logistic EuroScore, Staphylococcus aureus etiology, and complications (stroke, heart failure, and acute renal failure) were associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses (P  < .05 for all). Conclusions Although overall IE incidence has remained stable, the incidence of early IE has declined in recent years. The microorganism, high rate of complications, and very low rate of surgical treatment remained similar. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were high but progressively decreased over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive management. This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding (both endpoints assessed at 12 months). There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.75; P = 0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.44 [1.10–1.87]; P = 0.007; P for interaction = 0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR = 0.81 [0.49–1.35]; P = 0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR = 1.38 [0.94–2.01]; P = 0.097). In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive management strategy, the smoking status did not significantly interact with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. NCT01944800 • In ACS patients, ticagrelor and prasugrel showed similar efficacy regardless of smoking status. • Bleeding risk was comparable between ticagrelor and prasugrel in smokers and nonsmokers. • Smoking status does not interfere with the relative treatment effect of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]