Search

Background In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation without an indication for oral anticoagulation, it is unclear whether single or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is necessary to minimize both the bleeding and thromboembolic risk. In this patient-level meta-analysis, we further investigate the effect of aspirin alone compared with DAPT for preventing both thromboembolic and bleeding events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results We conducted a systematic review of all available randomized controlled trials comparing aspirin with DAPT. In total, 1086 patients were included across 4 eligible trials. The primary outcomes were the composite of all-cause mortality, major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke or myocardial infarction (first composite outcome), and the same composite excluding bleeding (second composite outcome), both tested at 30 days and 3 months. The first composite outcome occurred significantly less in the aspirin-alone group at 30 days (10.3% versus 14.7%, odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.97, P =0.034) and 3 months (11.0% versus 16.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.94, P =0.02), compared with the DAPT group. The second composite outcome occurred in 5.5% and 6.6% at 30 days (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50-1.38, P =0.47) and in 6.9% and 8.5% at 3 months in the aspirin-alone group compared with the DAPT group (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.29, P =0.39), respectively. Conclusions In patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation, aspirin alone significantly reduced the composite of thromboembolic and bleeding events, and does not increase the composite of thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic valve implantation, compared with DAPT.

Background: Studies examining the role of factor V Leiden among patients at higher risk of atherothrombotic events, such as those with established coronary heart disease (CHD), are lacking. Given that coagulation is involved in the thrombus formation stage on atherosclerotic plaque rupture, we hypothesized that factor V Leiden may be a stronger risk factor for atherothrombotic events in patients with established CHD., Methods: We performed an individual-level meta-analysis including 25 prospective studies (18 cohorts, 3 case-cohorts, 4 randomized trials) from the GENIUS-CHD (Genetics of Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease) consortium involving patients with established CHD at baseline. Participating studies genotyped factor V Leiden status and shared risk estimates for the outcomes of interest using a centrally developed statistical code with harmonized definitions across studies. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain age- and sex-adjusted estimates. The obtained estimates were pooled using fixed-effect meta-analysis. The primary outcome was composite of myocardial infarction and CHD death. Secondary outcomes included any stroke, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality., Results: The studies included 69 681 individuals of whom 3190 (4.6%) were either heterozygous or homozygous (n=47) carriers of factor V Leiden. Median follow-up per study ranged from 1.0 to 10.6 years. A total of 20 studies with 61 147 participants and 6849 events contributed to analyses of the primary outcome. Factor V Leiden was not associated with the combined outcome of myocardial infarction and CHD death (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.92-1.16]; I 2 =28%; P -heterogeneity=0.12). Subgroup analysis according to baseline characteristics or strata of traditional cardiovascular risk factors did not show relevant differences. Similarly, risk estimates for the secondary outcomes including stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were also close to identity., Conclusions: Factor V Leiden was not associated with increased risk of subsequent atherothrombotic events and mortality in high-risk participants with established and treated CHD. Routine assessment of factor V Leiden status is unlikely to improve atherothrombotic events risk stratification in this population.

Introduction: Whether high factor (F)VIII and low free protein S levels are risk factors for arterial thrombosis is unclarified., Material and Methods: In a post-hoc analysis of a single-centre retrospective family cohort, we determined if these two proteins could increase the risk of arterial thrombosis. In total, 1399 relatives were analysed., Results: Annual incidence in relatives with high FVIII levels was 0.29% (95%CI, 0.22-0.38) compared to 0.13% (95%CI, 0.09-0.19) in relatives with normal FVIII levels. In relatives with low free protein S levels, this risk was 0.26% (95%CI, 0.16-0.40), compared to 0.14% (95%CI, 0.10-0.20) in relatives with normal free protein S levels. Mean FVIII levels adjusted for age and sex were 11 IU/dL, 18 IU/dL, and 21 IU/dL higher in relatives with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity as compared to relatives without these arterial thrombotic risk factors. Moreover, a dose response relation between increasing FVIII and body mass index was found. None of these associations were shown for free protein S., Conclusions: High FVIII and low free protein S levels seemed to be mild risk factors for arterial thrombosis. High FVIII levels were particularly observed in relatives with traditional arterial thrombotic risk factors. Free protein S levels were not influenced by these thrombotic risk factors. This assumes that low free protein S levels were genetically determined., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Much controversy surrounds the association of traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors with venous thromboembolism (VTE).Methods: We performed an individual level random-effect meta-analysis including 9 prospective studies with measured baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors and validated VTE events. Definitions were harmonized across studies. Traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors were modeled categorically and continuously using restricted cubic splines. Estimates were obtained for overall VTE, provoked VTE (ie, VTE occurring in the presence of 1 or more established VTE risk factors), and unprovoked VTE, pulmonary embolism, and deep-vein thrombosis.Results: The studies included 244 865 participants with 4910 VTE events occurring during a mean follow-up of 4.7 to 19.7 years per study. Age, sex, and body mass index-adjusted hazard ratios for overall VTE were 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.07) for hypertension, 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-1.08) for hyperlipidemia, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.89-1.15) for diabetes mellitus, and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.08-1.32) for current smoking. After full adjustment, these estimates were numerically similar. When modeled continuously, an inverse association was observed for systolic blood pressure (hazard ratio=0.79 [95% CI: 0.68-0.92] at systolic blood pressure 160 vs 110 mm Hg) but not for diastolic blood pressure or lipid measures with VTE. An important finding from VTE subtype analyses was that cigarette smoking was associated with provoked but not unprovoked VTE. Fully adjusted hazard ratios for the associations of current smoking with provoked and unprovoked VTE were 1.36 (95% CI: 1.22-1.52) and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.90-1.29), respectively.Conclusions: Except for the association between cigarette smoking and provoked VTE, which is potentially mediated through comorbid conditions such as cancer, the modifiable traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors are not associated with increased VTE risk. Higher systolic blood pressure showed an inverse association with VTE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]