Key result
Review evaluates current evidence to identify optimal antithrombotic strategies after TAVR or TMVR.
This review summarizes current evidence on optimal antithrombotic strategies to balance thromboembolic and bleeding risks after transcatheter heart valve replacement.
May inform antithrombotic decisions after TAVR/TMVR; leaves optimal regimens open pending dedicated trials.
Transcatheter heart valve replacement technology was introduced as alternative to surgery for the growing high-risk profile population. Developed first, aortic valve replacement (TAVR) became a standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk, with a potential future use also for low-risk subjects. In the last decade, a multitude of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) devices have been developed for the treatment of severe mitral regurgitation, with encouraging results coming from first-in-man and feasibility studies. As for biological surgical-type valves, transcatheter implanted valves still preserve the risk of thrombosis and embolic events and anticoagulation- or antiplatelet-based strategies are the most widely used options. Unfortunately, these last remain recommended on the basis of empirical or not widely validated evidence. Therefore, given the exponential rise of TAVR and TMVR procedures, it is important to identify the optimal antithrombotic strategies that best fit the risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events. Hereafter, this review evaluates the current guidelines, trials, and observational data discussing antithrombotic strategy after transcatheter aortic or mitral valve replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sorrentino et al. (2018) conducted a review in Severe aortic stenosis and severe mitral regurgitation. Antithrombotic strategies was evaluated. This review evaluates current guidelines, trials, and observational data to identify optimal antithrombotic strategies after transcatheter aortic or mitral valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: