4.5 Article

Rationale and design of POPular-TAVI: antiPlatelet therapy fOr Patients undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 77-85

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.11.008

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Despite improving experience and techniques, ischemic and bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain prevalent and impair survival. Current guidelines recommend the temporary addition of clopidogrel in the initial period after TAVI to prevent thromboembolic events. However, explorative studies suggest that this is associated with a higher rate of major bleeding without a decrease in thromboembolic complications. Methods The POPular TAVI trial is a prospective randomized, controlled, open-label multicenter clinical trial to test the hypothesis that monotherapy with aspirin or oral anticoagulation (OAC) after TAVI is safer than the addition of clopidogrel for 3 months, without compromising clinical benefit. This trial encompasses 2 cohorts: cohort A, patients are randomized 1: 1 to aspirin vs aspirin + clopidogrel, and cohort B, patients on OAC therapy are randomized 1: 1 to OACvs OAC + clopidogrel. Primary outcome is freedom from non-procedure-related bleeding at 1 year. Secondary net-clinical benefit outcome is freedom from the composite of cardiovascular death, non-procedural-related bleeding, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The primary outcome is analyzed for superiority, whereas the secondary outcome is analyzed for noninferiority. Recruitment began in February 2014, and the trial will continue until a total of 1,000 patients (684 expected in cohort A and 316 in cohort B) are included and followed up for 1 year. Summary The POPular TAVI trial (NCT02247128) is the first large randomized controlled trial to test if monotherapy with aspirin or OAC vs additional clopidogrel after TAVI reduces bleeding with a favorable net-clinical benefit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据