Key result
Post-TAVR dual antiplatelet therapy increased the composite of mortality, stroke, bleeding, and myocardial infarction compared to single antiplatelet therapy (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.63-3.50; P<0.0001).
Why the study?
There is currently no clear consensus regarding the optimal antiplatelet strategy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
Does dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compared to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR?
Meta-Analysis (n=7,104)
Does dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) compared to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR?
Post-TAVR DAPT increases bleeding events without providing survival or ischemic benefits compared to SAPT.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Avoid routine DAPT post-TAVR due to net harm; confirms SAPT as preferred strategy in guidelines.
INTRODUCTION: Recently transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a feasible alternative for traditional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with intermediate to high risk. There is currently no clear consensus regarding the optimal antiplatelet strategy after TAVR. The primary objective of this updated meta-analyses was to compare the outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) following TAVR. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A meta-analysis of eligible studies of patients undergoing TAVR which reported our outcomes of postoperative DAPT in comparison with SAPT, was carried out. The outcomes included the all-cause mortality, stroke, major/life-threatening bleeding, myocardial infarction and a composite endpoint of mortality, stroke, bleeding and myocardial infarction. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs, N.=421) and 5 observational studies (N.=6683) were included in this updated meta-analysis. All-cause mortality was comparable between the two groups (OR 1.13 [95% CI: 0.70-1.81], P=0.619). Besides, DAPT resulted in an augmented risk of major/life-threatening bleeding (OR 2.45 [95% CI: 1.08-5.59], P=0.032). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in the rates of stroke (OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.62-1.10], P=0.212) and myocardial infarction (OR 1.17 [95% CI: 0.47-2.91], P=0.728). And DAPT led to an increased rate of the composite endpoint (OR 2.39 [95% CI: 1.63-3.50], P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONSː The updated meta-analysis presents the evidence that post-TAVR DAPT increases bleeding events, with no benefit in survival and ischemic events, in comparison with SAPT. Nevertheless, it is currently difficult to evaluate by a meta-analysis the effectiveness of DAPT versus SAPT to prevent the valve thrombosis resulting in leaflet dysfunction, due to a limited number of existing publications. Additional RCTs are needed to determine the optimal antiplatelet strategy after TAVR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=7,104). Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs. Single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) was evaluated on Composite endpoint of mortality, stroke, bleeding and myocardial infarction (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.63-3.50, p=<0.0001). Post-TAVR dual antiplatelet therapy increased the composite of mortality, stroke, bleeding, and myocardial infarction compared to single antiplatelet therapy (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.63-3.50; P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: