Meta-Analysis of Glucocorticoids for Covid-19 Patients Not Receiving Oxygen.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), although a possible harm was documented in patients with Covid-19 not requiring oxygen. METHODS: We searched Embase, BioMed Central, medRxiv, bioRxiv, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for any randomized trial or matched study ever performed on adult patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen therapy treated with intravenous or oral glucocorticoids versus any comparator (standard therapy or placebo); there were no restrictions on dose or time of administration. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up. RESULTS: Five randomized trials and one propensity-matched study involving 6634 hospitalized patients not on oxygen were finally included (3704 received glucocorticoids and 2930 received standard treatment). The overall mortality of patients treated with glucocorticoids was significantly higher than the mortality of patients in the control group (509 of 3704 [14%] in the glucocorticoid group vs. 294 of 2930 [10%] in the control group; odds ratio, 1.56 [95% confidence interval, 1.27 to 1.92], with three articles reporting mortality events and contributing to the combined odds ratio; P<0.001; number needed to harm=27). CONCLUSIONS: Glucocorticoid use likely increases mortality in hospitalized patients with Covid-19 not receiving oxygen, with a number needed to harm of 27. (PROSPERO number CRD42022342996.)

Noninvasive Ventilatory Support of Patients with COVID-19 outside the Intensive Care Units (WARd-COVID).

Rationale: Treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is frequent. Shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside ICUs. Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited.Objectives: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death).Methods: In this prospective, single-day observational study, we enrolled adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with NIV outside the ICU from 31 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.Results: We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, ventilatory management, and patient outcomes. Of 8,753 patients with COVID-19 present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. A majority of patients (778/909; 85%) patients were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was delivered by helmet in 617 (68%) patients. NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), whereas 498 (62.4%) patients were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with an arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio <150 mm Hg. Higher C-reactive protein and lower PaO2/FiO2 and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs was common in COVID-19, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success >60% and close to 75% in full-treatment patients. C-reactive protein, PaO2/FiO2, and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).

Nonsurgical Strategies to Reduce Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to which nonsurgical interventions can reduce mortality in this setting. The authors sought to address this issue with a consensus-based approach. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process. SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: More than 400 physicians from 52 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. INTERVENTIONS: The authors identified all studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported on interventions with a statistically significant effect on mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery through a systematic Medline/PubMed search and contacts with experts. These studies were discussed during a consensus meeting and those considered eligible for inclusion in this study were voted on by clinicians worldwide. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eleven interventions finally were selected: 10 were shown to reduce mortality (aspirin, glycemic control, high-volume surgeons, prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump, levosimendan, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, vacuum-assisted closure, and volatile agents), whereas 1 (aprotinin) increased mortality. A significant difference in the percentages of agreement among different countries and a variable gap between agreement and clinical practice were found for most of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This updated consensus process identified 11 nonsurgical interventions with possible survival implications for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This list of interventions may help cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists worldwide in their daily clinical practice and can contribute to direct future research in the field.

Nonsurgical Strategies to Reduce Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Updated Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE:A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to which nonsurgical interventions can reduce mortality in this setting. The authors sought to address this issue with a consensus-based approach.DESIGN:A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.SETTING:A web-based international consensus conference.PARTICIPANTS:More than 400 physicians from 52 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference.INTERVENTIONS:The authors identified all studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported on interventions with a statistically significant effect on mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery through a systematic Medline/PubMed search and contacts with experts. These studies were discussed during a consensus meeting and those considered eligible for inclusion in this study were voted on by clinicians worldwide.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Eleven interventions finally were selected: 10 were shown to reduce mortality (aspirin, glycemic control, high-volume surgeons, prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump, levosimendan, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, vacuum-assisted closure, and volatile agents), whereas 1 (aprotinin) increased mortality. A significant difference in the percentages of agreement among different countries and a variable gap between agreement and clinical practice were found for most of the interventions.CONCLUSIONS:This updated consensus process identified 11 nonsurgical interventions with possible survival implications for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This list of interventions may help cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists worldwide in their daily clinical practice and can contribute to direct future research in the field.

Outcome After General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). DESIGN: Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR-taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. SETTING: Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS: Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.

BACKGROUND: The proven efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in high-risk patients is leading to the expansion of its indications toward lower-risk patients. However, this shift is not supported by meaningful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This analysis aims to describe outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in low-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the outcome after TAVI and SAVR of low-risk patients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) study. The primary outcome was 3-year survival. Secondary outcomes were early events and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 3 years. Propensity score matching resulted in 355 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Thirty-day survival was 97.1% after SAVR and 97.4% after TAVI (P=0.82). Cardiac tamponade, permanent pacemaker implantation, major vascular damage, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation were significantly more frequent after TAVI compared with SAVR. Stroke rates were equal in the study groups. SAVR was associated with higher risk of cardiogenic shock, severe bleeding, and acute kidney injury. At 3 years, survival was 83.4% after SAVR and 72.0% after TAVI (P=0.0015), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 80.9% after SAVR and 67.3% after TAVI (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with low operative risk, significantly better 3-year survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were observed after SAVR compared with TAVI. Further studies on new-generation valve prostheses are necessary before expanding indications of TAVI toward lower-risk patients.

Early and Midterm Outcome of Propensity-Matched Intermediate-Risk Patients Aged ≥80 Years With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (from the Italian Multicenter OBSERVANT Study).

The aim of this study was to analyze procedural and postprocedural outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years treated by transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as enrolled in the OBservational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVR procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment (OBSERVANT) Study. TAVI is offered to patients with aortic stenosis judged inoperable or at high surgical risk. Nevertheless, it is common clinical practice to treat elderly (≥80 years) patients by TAVI regardless of surgical risk for traditional SAVR. OBSERVANT is a multicenter, observational, prospective cohort study that enrolled patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in 93 Italian participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status before intervention, therapeutic approach, and intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on midterm to long-term outcomes. We reviewed baseline and procedural data of patients aged ≥80 years, looking for different early and late outcome after TAVI or SAVR. Patients treated by TAVI were sicker than SAVR because of higher rate of co-morbidities, advanced illness, frailty, and Logistic EuroSCORE. After propensity matching, early and midterm mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. However, patients treated by TAVI had higher rate of vascular complications (6.0% vs 0.5%; p <0.0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (13.4% vs 3.7%; p <0.0001), and paravalvular leak (8.9% vs 2.4%; p <0.0001). Patients who underwent SAVR had more frequent bleedings needing transfusion (63.2% vs 34.5%; p <0.0001) and acute kidney injury (9.6% vs 3.9%; p = 0.0010). In conclusion, patients aged ≥80 years treated by TAVI or SAVR had similar early and midterm mortality.

Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). Thirty-day mortality was 8.0% after TA-TAVR and 4.0% after TF-TAVR (p = 0.102). Postoperative rates of stroke (TA-TAVR, 2.0% vs TF-TAVR 1.0%, p = 0.414), cardiac tamponade (TA-TAVR, 4.1% vs TF-TAVR 1.5%, p = 0.131), permanent pacemaker implantation (TA-TAVR, 8.7% vs TF-TAVR 13.3%, p = 0.414), and infection (TA-TAVR, 6.7% vs TF-TAVR 3.6%, p = 0.180) were similar in the study groups but with an overall trend in favor of TF-TAVR. Higher rates of major vascular damage (7.2% vs 1.0%, p = 0.003) and moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (7.8% vs 5.2%, p = 0.008) were observed after TF-TAVR. On the contrary, TA-TAVR was associated with higher rates of red blood cell transfusion (50.0% vs 30.4%, p = 0.0002) and acute kidney injury (stages 1 to 3: 44.4% vs 21.9%, p <0.0001) compared with TF-TAVR. Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.

1-Year Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the Italian OBSERVANT Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of prospective and controlled data on the comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a real-world setting. OBJECTIVES: This analysis aims to describe 1-year clinical outcomes of a large series of propensity-matched patients who underwent SAVR and transfemoral TAVR. METHODS: The OBSERVANT (Observational Study of Effectiveness of SAVR-TAVI Procedures for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) trial is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study that enrolled patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent SAVR or TAVR. The propensity score method was applied to select 2 groups with similar baseline characteristics. All outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases. The primary endpoints of this analysis were death from any cause and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year. RESULTS: The unadjusted enrolled population (N = 7,618) included 5,707 SAVR patients and 1,911 TAVR patients. The matched population had a total of 1,300 patients (650 per group). The propensity score method generated a low-intermediate risk population (mean logistic EuroSCORE 1: 10.2 ± 9.2% vs. 9.5 ± 7.1%, SAVR vs. transfemoral TAVR; p = 0.104). At 1 year, the rate of death from any cause was 13.6% in the surgical group and 13.8% in the transcatheter group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 1.35; p = 0.936). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of MACCE, which were 17.6% in the surgical group and 18.2% in the transcatheter group (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.36; p = 0.831). The cumulative incidence of cerebrovascular events, and rehospitalization due to cardiac reasons and acute heart failure was similar in both groups at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that SAVR and transfemoral TAVR have comparable mortality, MACCE, and rates of rehospitalization due to cardiac reasons at 1 year. These data need to be confirmed in longer term and dedicated ongoing randomized trials.

Preliminary outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with systemic sclerosis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to report the feasibility and the preliminary outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the frail and unique high-risk population of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with SSc and severe AS treated with TAVI between November 2007 and June 2013 in our centre were included in the current study. Outcomes were assessed using the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) definitions. Of 526 surgical high-risk patients treated in the study period, only six had SSc (1.1%). All SSc patients underwent transfemoral TAVI under conscious sedation. The procedure was successfully performed in all patients. There was one case of a major vascular complication. During a median follow-up time of 550 days (interquartile range 390-1,009 days), five of the six patients were alive, free from any complications and with an NYHA Class I or II. One patient died at 670 days from a stroke of unknown aetiology. CONCLUSIONS: The present case series suggests that the TAVI procedure is feasible in patients with SSc and severe AS.

Afterload mismatch after MitraClip insertion for functional mitral regurgitation.

Afterload mismatch, defined as acute impairment of left ventricular function after mitral surgery, is a major issue in patients with low ejection fraction and functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). Safety and efficacy of MitraClip therapy have been assessed in randomized trials, but limited data on its acute hemodynamic effects are available. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and prognostic role of afterload mismatch in patients affected by FMR treated with MitraClip therapy. We retrospectively analyzed patients affected by FMR and submitted to MitraClip therapy from October 2008 to December 2012. Patients were assigned to 2 groups according to the occurrence of the afterload mismatch: patients with afterload mismatch (AM+) and without afterload mismatch (AM-). Of 73 patients, 19 (26%) experienced afterload mismatch in the early postoperative period. Among preoperative variables, end-diastolic diameter (71 ± 8 vs 67 ± 7 mm, p = 0.02) and end-systolic diameter (57 ± 9 vs 53 ± 7 mm, p = 0.04) were both significantly larger in AM+ group. An increased incidence of right ventricular dysfunction (68% vs 31%, p = 0.049) and pulmonary hypertension (49 ± 10 vs 40 ± 10 mm Hg, p = 0.0009) was found in AM+ group. Before hospital discharge, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) became similar in both groups (31 ± 9% vs 33 ± 11%, p = 0.65). Long-term survival was comparable between the 2 groups (p = 0.44). A low LVEF in the early postoperative period (LVEF <17%) was significantly associated with higher mortality rate in long-term follow-up (p = 0.048). In conclusion, reduction of mitral regurgitation with MitraClip can cause afterload mismatch; however, this phenomenon is transient, without long-term prognostic implications.

A simple risk tool (the OBSERVANT score) for prediction of 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Risk stratification tools used in patients with severe aortic stenosis have been mostly derived from surgical series. Although specific predictors of early mortality with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been identified, the prognostic impact of their combination is unexplored. We sought to develop a simple score, using preprocedural variables, for prediction of 30-day mortality after TAVR. A total of 1,878 patients from a national multicenter registry who underwent TAVR were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to development and validation data sets. Baseline characteristics of the 1,256 patients in the development data set were considered as candidate univariate predictors of 30-day mortality. A bootstrap multivariate logistic regression process was used to select correlates of 30-day mortality that were subsequently weighted and integrated into a scoring system. Seven variables were weighted proportionally to their respective odds ratios for 30-day mortality (glomerular filtration rate <45 ml/min [6 points], critical preoperative state [5 points], New York Heart Association class IV [4 points], pulmonary hypertension [4 points], diabetes mellitus [4 points], previous balloon aortic valvuloplasty [3 points], and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% [3 points]). The model showed good discrimination in both the development and validation data sets (C statistics 0.73 and 0.71, respectively). Compared with the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation in the validation data set, the model showed better discrimination (C statistic 0.71 vs 0.66), goodness of fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow p value 0.81 vs 0.00), and global accuracy (Brier score 0.054 vs 0.073). In conclusion, the risk of 30-day mortality after TAVR may be estimated by combining 7 baseline clinical variables into a simple risk scoring system.

[Results of the OBSERVANT study: clinical characteristics and short-term outcome of the enrolled population treated with transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation]. / Risultati dello studio OBSERVANT: caratteristiche cliniche ed esiti a breve termine della popolazione arruolata sottoposta a sostituzione valvolare aortica (transcatetere versus chirurgica).

BACKGROUND: OBSERVANT represents the first national observational study on the comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at short, medium and long term, in a patient population with severe aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this paper is to describe patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the enrolled population. METHODS: OBSERVANT is an observational prospective multicenter cohort study that enrolled AS patients undergoing SAVR or TAVI from December 2010 to June 2012 in the participating hospitals. Information on demographic characteristics, health status prior to intervention, therapeutic approach, intraprocedural and 30-day outcomes was collected. An administrative follow-up was set up to collect data on long-term outcomes. RESULTS: The enrolled population included 7618 patients undergoing transfemoral/transubclavian TAVI (TF/TS-TAVI, n=1652), transapical TAVI (TA-TAVI, n=259) or SAVR (n=5707). SAVR patients were younger and with a lower risk profile than TAVI patients (logistic EuroSCORE: SAVR 6.4 ± 7.3%, TF/TS-TAVI 14.1 ± 12.1%, TA-TAVI 15.5 ± 11.0%; p<0.001). When 30-day mortality rates were stratified by logistic EuroSCORE, a statistically significant difference was found only in the patient subgroup with logistic EuroSCORE ≤5% (SAVR 1.0%, TF/TS-TAVI 4.7%, TA-TAVI 0.0%; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the OBSERVANT study confirm that patients undergoing TAVI are older and sicker than patients undergoing SAVR. Nevertheless, the logistic EuroSCORE shows that, in Italy, also patients at intermediate surgical risk are treated with TAVI. Stratifying by logistic EuroSCORE, SAVR seems to be superior to TAVI in the subgroup of patients at very low risk. More sophisticated analyses on patient subgroups with comparable risk profile and on long-term follow-up will allow to obtain valuable information on the effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR procedures.

Usefulness of baseline activated clotting time-guided heparin administration in reducing bleeding events during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of baseline activated clotting time (ACT)-guided heparin administration on major bleeding after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: Bleeding after TAVI is frequent and associated with unfavorable prognosis. Proper intraprocedural heparin dose administration may reduce the risk of potential overdosing in this frail study group. METHODS: Of the patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI in our center from November 1, 2007 to June 31, 2012, 362 were retrospectively analyzed. Because abnormally high baseline ACT values were noted, heparin was administered at the operator's discretion, according to baseline ACT (ACT-guided, n = 174) or patient's body weight (non-ACT-guided, n = 188). The primary study objective was 30-day major bleeding as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria. Secondary objectives were any life-threatening, and minor bleeding, and other Valve Academic Research Consortium outcomes at 30 days. RESULTS: Bleeding occurred in 167 (46.1%) patients; of these, 76 (21.0%) had major bleeding. The ACT-guided group had a significantly lower occurrence of major (7.5% vs. 33.5%, p < 0.001), life-threatening (12.1% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.04), and any bleeding (25.9% vs. 64.9%, p < 0.001). Conversely, no differences were noted in the other study objectives. After adjustment for potential confounders, the protective odds ratio for ACT-guided therapy on major bleeding was 6.4 (95% confidence interval: 2.3 to 17.9; p < 0.001) at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, heparin administration according to baseline ACT was correlated with a significantly lower occurrence of major bleeding in transfemoral TAVI. This strategy might be a useful tool in reducing bleeding in this high-risk study group.

Anticoagulation for critically ill cardiac surgery patients: is primary bivalirudin the next step?

OBJECTIVE: Anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill cardiac surgery patients has several limitations, including the risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The use of a direct thrombin inhibitor, such as bivalirudin, might either treat this complication or completely eliminate it. The aim of the present study was to analyze the use of bivalirudin in this setting, as either a secondary drug switching from heparin or as the primary anticoagulant, and to evaluate clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Propensity-matching retrospective analysis. SETTING: A cardiac surgery intensive care unit. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred propensity-matched patients who received heparin or bivalirudin. INTERVENTIONS: Bivalirudin was administered as a first-line or second-line drug after heparin discontinuation in case of thrombocytopenia and suspicion of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Twenty-six patients (52%) received bivalirudin as a primary anticoagulant, while 24 patients (48%) received bivalirudin after switching from heparin. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Bivalirudin treatment was associated with a reduction of major bleeding (p=0.05) compared with the control group. Interestingly, in an intention-to-treat analysis, patients receiving primary bivalirudin showed significant reductions in minor bleeding (p=0.04), and mortality (p=0.01) compared with the secondary bivalirudin group and, similarly, compared with the rest of the study population (UFH and secondary bivalirudin patients, p=0.01 and p=0.05, respectively). Predictors of hospital mortality by multivariate analysis included urgent admission (odds ratio [OR]=2.7; 95 confidence interval [CI], 1.03-7.2; p=0.04), ;septic shock (OR=8.0; 95 CI, 2.26-28.7; p<0.005) and primary therapy with UFH (OR=19.2; 95 CI, 2.2-163.9; p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Novel anticoagulant strategies might play a crucial role in critically ill cardiac surgery patients. In a propensity-matched population, results of the present study showed that primary bivalirudin anticoagulation may reduce bleeding complications and mortality.