Search

Purpose Clinical controversy regarding the most appropriate antithrombotic regimen after transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains. Current evidence, guidelines, and recommendations are discussed. Summary Antithrombotic selection following transcatheter aortic valve replacement depends on a variety of patient-specific factors. For patients without a preexisting indication for anticoagulation, initial trials employed dual antiplatelet therapy as the postprocedural therapy of choice. Newer studies in this patient population, however, suggest single antiplatelet therapy reduces bleeding events without sacrificing ischemic protection. In patients with a preexisting indication for anticoagulation, warfarin plus single antiplatelet therapy, as opposed to triple antithrombotic therapy, offered similar ischemic protection while reducing clinically significant bleeding. Warfarin monotherapy was associated with a further reduction in bleeding events. One trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of using apixaban in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation; however, routine use of rivaroxaban increased adverse cardiac and bleeding events, leaving the utility of direct-acting oral anticoagulants in question. Conclusion Available evidence and current guidelines point to a lack of consensus regarding antithrombotic selection after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Patient-specific factors and comorbidities must be considered when tailoring therapy, with an emphasis on balancing thrombotic and bleeding risks.

Volume management in acute decompensated and chronic heart failure (HF) remains a significant challenge. Although progress has been made in the development of mortality-reducing neurohormonal regimens in the reduced ejection fraction population, no clinical trial has yet demonstrated anything more than symptomatic relief or biomarker reduction with pharmacotherapeutic volume-based interventions made in the acutely decompensated individual or those with evolving outpatient congestion. As the number of patients with HF continues to grow, in addition to HF-related hospitalizations, identifying therapies that have the potential to aid in diuresis more safely and efficaciously is paramount to decreasing inpatient length of stay and preventing unnecessary admissions. More recently, a significant amount of research has been dedicated to the use of vasopressin antagonists, specifically tolvaptan, as adjunctive therapy to loop and thiazide diuretics. Although these agents do not seem to have a pervasive role in fluid management in the acute decompensated and chronic HF populations, they are effective tools to have available for specific clinical situations. This review summarizes the literature surrounding the use of tolvaptan for volume management in congestive HF, as well as offering practical guidance for use of this agent.

Our aim was to summarize published secondary analyses of the PARADIGM-HF trial. In the original trial, published in September 2014, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization compared to enalapril. This summary provides a resource for clinicians to review subsequent analyses of the landmark trial evaluating the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan in various subgroups and providing information regarding optimal use of this new therapy in the broader heart failure population. A full list of publications of the existing PARDADIGM-HF post hoc analyses was obtained and summarized, grouped by focus (e.g., severity of illness, tolerability). Twenty-six publications and one abstract analyzing the PARADIGM-HF trial were reviewed, summarizing the most important results that compared the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril, including pertinent subgroup information from each analysis. Key publications evaluated the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan based on heart failure severity (i.e., ejection fraction or heart failure risk scores), impact on alternate outcomes, influence of additional therapies, tolerability in patients with comorbidities (i.e., diabetes), long-term benefits, and cost-effectiveness. In addition, nine ongoing phase III and phase IV clinical trials with sacubitril/valsartan were briefly summarized to address potential future uses in more extensive heart failure settings. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril for the primary endpoint in the PARADIGM-HF trial is maintained throughout numerous secondary analyses. Though the subgroups analyzed are based on participants from a single clinical trial, clinicians can more confidently incorporate this novel therapy into practice with expanded knowledge of these existing analyses as well as ongoing prospective trials.