Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58 556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Comparison of patients in three different rehabilitation settings after knee or hip arthroplasty: a natural observational, prospective study.

BACKGROUND Patients after primary hip or knee replacement surgery can benefit from postoperative treatment in terms of improvement of independence in ambulation, transfers, range of motion and muscle strength. After discharge from hospital, patients are referred to different treatment destination and modalities: intensive inpatient rehabilitation (IR), cure (medically prescribed stay at a convalescence center), or ambulatory treatment (AT) at home. The purpose of this study was to 1) measure functional health (primary outcome) and function relevant factors in patients with hip or knee arthroplasty and to compare them in relation to three postoperative management strategies: AT, Cure and IR and 2) compare the post-operative changes in patient's health status (between preoperative and the 6 month follow-up) for three rehabilitation settings. METHODS Natural observational, prospective two-center study with follow-up. Sociodemographic data and functional mobility tests, Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Iowa Level of Assistance Scale (ILOAS) of 201 patients were analysed before arthroplasty and at the end of acute hospital stay (mean duration of stay: 9.7 days +/- 3.9). Changes in health state were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before and 6 months after arthroplasty. RESULTS Compared to patients referred for IR and Cure, patients referred for AT were significantly younger and less comorbid. Patients admitted to IR had the highest functional disability before arthroplasty. Before rehabilitation, mean TUG was 40.0 s in the IR group, 33.9 s in the Cure group, and 27.5 s in the AT group, and corresponding mean ILOAS was 16.0, 13.0 and 12.2 (50.0 = worst). At the 6 months follow-up, the corresponding effect sizes of the WOMAC global score were 1.32, 1.87, and 1.51 (>0 means improvement). CONCLUSIONS Age, comorbidity and functional disability are associated with referral for intensive inpatient rehabilitation after hip or knee arthroplasty and partly affect health changes after rehabilitation.