Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after... Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-018-0111-4 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement . . . Anubodh Varshney Ryan A. Watson Andrew Noll . . . KyungAh Im Jeffrey Rossi Pinak Shah Robert P. Giugliano Received: March 30, 2018 / Published online: May 19, 2018 The Author(s) 2018 2014. Antithrombotic regimens were classified ABSTRACT as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (AP), single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant (SAC), or triple Introduction: Optimal antithrombotic therapy therapy (TT). The primary endpoint was a after transcatheter aortic valve replacement composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), (TAVR) remains unclear. We evaluated the stroke, and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard association between antithrombotic regimens ratios (HRs) were obtained with best subset and outcomes in TAVR patients. variable selection methods using bootstrap Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consec- resampling. utive patients who underwent TAVR at a single Results: Of 246 patients who underwent TAVR, academic center from April 2009 to March 241 were eligible for analysis with 133, 88, and Enhanced digital features To view enhanced digital 20 patients in the AP, SAC, and TT groups, features for this article, go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ respectively. During a median 2.1-year follow- m9.figshare.6205685. up, 53.5% had at least one endpoint—the most common was death (68%), followed by major A. Varshney bleeding (23%), stroke (6%), and MI (3%). At Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Medicine and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 2 years, the composite outcome occurred in USA 70% of TT, 42% of SAC, and 31% of AP patients. Compared to AP, adjusted HRs for the com- R. A. Watson Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, posite outcome were 2.88 [95% Confidence Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, intervals (CI) (1.61–5.16); p = 0.0004] and 1.66 USA (95% CI [1.13-2.42]; p = 0.009) in the TT and A. Noll  J. Rossi SAC groups, respectively. Mortality rates at Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland 2 years were 61% in the TT, 32% in the SAC, Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA and 26% in the AP groups (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The risk of the composite out- K. Im  R. P. Giugliano (&) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study come of death, MI, stroke, or major bleeding at Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard 2-year follow-up was significantly higher in Medical School, Boston, MA, USA TAVR patients treated with TT or SAC versus AP, e-mail: rgiugliano@partners.org even after multivariate adjustment. P. Shah  R. P. Giugliano Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Keywords: Antithrombosis; Aortic stenosis; Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 72 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 procedural characteristics were collected. INTRODUCTION Patients were then prospectively followed for ascertainment of study outcomes. The Institu- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) tional Review Board of Partners Healthcare in has become an established treatment for Boston, Massachusetts, approved the study, and patients with symptomatic, severe aortic signed informed consent was obtained from stenosis with intermediate, high, or prohibitive each patient. All procedures performed in surgical risk [1–5]. Despite advances in patient studies involving human participants were in selection, operator experience, and valve deliv- accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration ery systems, ischemic and bleeding complica- and its later amendments or comparable ethical tions remain important concerns after TAVR, as standards. they are associated with increased morbidity and mortality [6–8]. However, limited data are available comparing long-term outcomes with Antithrombotic Regimen varying antithrombotic regimens after TAVR. Current guidelines recommend dual anti- The antithrombotic regimen was noted pre- platelet therapy with aspirin (indefinitely) and TAVR, at the time of discharge from TAVR clopidogrel (for 1–6 months) after TAVR in admission, at 30 days, at 1 year, and through patients with no indication for therapeutic oral April 2016 using electronic health records and anticoagulation (OAC). In patients with an telephone follow-up. Antithrombotic regimens indication for OAC, guidelines generally rec- were classified as single or dual antiplatelet ommend against the use of triple therapy therapy only (AP), single antiplatelet plus anti- [9–12]. However, these recommendations have coagulant therapy (SAC), or triple therapy (TT) been made empirically and vary amongst pro- with DAPT plus OAC. Patients were grouped fessional societies, leading to heterogeneity in according to the antithrombotic regimen at the clinical practice [13]. time of latest follow-up for the purposes of the We sought to examine the association statistical analysis. between different antithrombotic regimens and the risk of mortality, ischemic, and bleeding Outcomes outcomes in a non-selected clinical population undergoing TAVR. Specifically, we compared The primary endpoint was the composite of outcomes among TAVR patients prescribed death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or single or dual antiplatelet therapy (AP), a single major bleeding (requiring hospitalization, life- antiplatelet agent plus OAC (SAC), or triple threatening, or fatal). Outcomes were assessed therapy (TT) with dual antiplatelet therapy according to Valve Academic Research Consor- (DAPT) and OAC. tium-2 definitions [14] at discharge, 30 days, 1 year, and through April 2016 using electronic medical record data and telephone follow-up METHODS with a standardized questionnaire. Study Population Statistical Analysis We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at Brigham and To determine associations between antithrom- Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, botic therapy group and the primary composite from April 2009 through March 2014. Baseline outcome, a Cox proportional hazards model medical history, routine laboratory testing, was used. A multivariable model was developed electrocardiography, echocardiography, with best subset variable selection methods CHA2DS2-VASc score, ATRIA score, New York using bootstrap resampling in order to account Heart Association functional classification, pre- for model variation due to small sample size procedure antithrombotic regimen, and TAVR [15]. The final model included adjustment for Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 73 chronic lung disease, prior percutaneous coro- (Fig. 1). Mortality rates at 2 years were 61%, nary intervention (PCI), male sex, age, and low- 32%, and 26% (p = 0.005) in the TT, SAC, and gradient aortic stenosis (defined as left ventric- AP groups, respectively, while major bleeding ular ejection fraction \ 50%, aortic valve rates were 29%, 18%, and 9.1%, respectively area \ 1.0 cm , and mean aortic valve gradi- (p = 0.02). Rates of stroke and MI were low and ent \ 40 mmHg). Results are reported as adjus- similar among groups. ted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence A total of 132 patients in the cohort had an intervals (CI). Proportional hazards assumption indication for OAC (88.6% had atrial fibrillation for the final model was assessed by score tests or flutter), including 40 in the AP group, 76 in using scaled Schoenfeld residuals. Crude the SAC group, and 16 in the TT group. Among cumulative event rates were calculated by the patients with an indication for OAC, the com- complement of Kaplan–Meier survival esti- posite outcome occurred in 69% of TT, 38% of mates, and log-rank test p values are also SAC, and 38% of AP patients (p = 0.06) at 2-year reported. All reported p values are two-sided, follow-up. and significance level was set at alpha 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 DISCUSSION (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). This study evaluated the association between RESULTS post-TAVR antithrombotic regimen and the composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or Table 1 outlines the baseline characteristics of major bleeding in a single-center cohort of 241 each study group. A total of 246 patients consecutive patients with at least 2-year follow- underwent TAVR from April 2009 to March up. Patients treated with TT or SAC versus AP 2014. Of these, five patients were excluded for had a higher incidence of the composite out- the following reasons: prescribed no come, even after multivariate adjustment. This antithrombotic therapy (n = 2) and incomplete finding was driven by an increase in both mor- post-discharge follow-up (n = 3), leaving 241 tality and major bleeding in the TT and SAC patients for final analysis. The baseline charac- groups. teristics among the AP (n = 133), SAC (n = 88), TAVR patients are at high risk for both and TT (n = 20) groups were similar, with the ischemic and bleeding events by virtue of co- exception of rates of atrial fibrillation or flutter morbidities and the procedure itself. Both types (p \ 0.01), indication for OAC (p \ 0.01), aortic of complications are associated with increased valve mean gradient (p = 0.044), and aortic morbidity and mortality. Moreover, TAVR valve peak velocity (p = 0.047) (Table 1). Over- patients frequently undergo pre-emptive coro- all, 67.2% of cases were done with a trans- nary artery stenting, which necessitates DAPT, femoral approach, while 16.2% and 15.8% of and approximately half have atrial fibrillation cases were performed via a transapical and requiring OAC. Given this complex interplay, transaortic approach, respectively. identifying an antithrombotic regimen that Of the 241 patients followed for a median of achieves an optimal balance between ischemic 2.1 years (interquartile range, 0.7–2.9 years), protection and bleeding risk mitigation is 53.5% (n = 129) had at least one endpoint. The paramount in this patient population. Never- components of the composite outcome in the theless, guideline recommendations for cohort were distributed as death (68%), major antithrombotic therapy after TAVR remain bleeding (23%), stroke (6%), and MI (3%) at empiric, and are extrapolated from the PCI 2-year follow-up. The risk of the composite experience and early TAVR clinical trial proto- outcome was highest with TT (70%; HR 2.88, cols [16]. 95% CI 1.61–5.16, p = 0.0004) and intermediate Our analysis indicates that treatment with with SAC (42%; HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.13–2.42, TT or SAC is associated with adverse clinical p = 0.009), compared to AP (31%) at 2 years outcomes compared to treatment with AP alone 74 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 Table 1 Patient characteristics by study group AP (n = 133) SAC (n = 88) TT (n = 20) Overall (n = 241) p value Age (years) 80.9 ± 10.0 81.0 ± 7.9 80.9 ± 6.3 80.9 ± 9.0 0.68 Male sex, n (%) 63 (47.4) 53 (60.2) 12 (60) 128 (53.1) 0.14 BMI (kg/m ) 26.6 ± 7.4 28.2 ± 5.9 28.1 ± 5.3 27.3 ± 6.8 0.053 Atrial fibrillation or flutter, n (%) 31 (23.3) 72 (81.8) 14 (70) 117 (48.5) \0.001 Prior DVT/PE, n (%) 9 (6.8) 11 (12.5) 2 (10) 22 (9.1) 0.35 CHA2DS2-VASc score 5.2 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.2 5.7 ± 1.1 5.4 ± 1.3 0.10 ATRIA score 2.7 ± 1.0 2.7 ± 0.8 3.1 ± 0.8 2.7 ± 0.9 0.20 Indication for OAC, n (%) 40 (30.1) 76 (86.4) 16 (80) 132 (54.8) \0.001 Prior GI bleeding, n (%) 23 (17.3) 9 (10.2) 4 (20) 36 (14.9) 0.28 Dyslipidemia, n (%) 105 (78.9) 72 (81.8) 20 (100) 197 (81.7) 0.076 Hypertension, n (%) 117 (88) 81 (92) 20 (100) 218 (90.5) 0.19 Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 52 (39.1) 37 (42) 7 (35) 96 (39.8) 0.82 Prior PCI, n (%) 37 (27.8) 25 (28.4) 9 (45) 71 (29.5) 0.28 Peripheral arterial disease, n (%) 30 (22.6) 19 (21.6) 6 (30) 55 (22.8) 0.72 Cerebrovascular disease, n (%) 14 (10.5) 16 (18.2) 4 (20) 34 (14.1) 0.20 Chronic lung disease, n (%) 49 (36.8) 41 (46.6) 8 (40) 98 (40.7) 0.35 On hemodialysis, n (%) 5 (3.8) 2 (2.3) 1 (5) 8 (3.3) 0.76 NYHA class, n (%) 0.86 I 0 (0) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 1 (0.4) II 7 (5.7) 5 (5.9) 2 (10.5) 14 (6.2) III 82 (66.7) 55 (64.7) 11 (57.9) 148 (65.2) IV 34 (27.6) 24 (28.2) 6 (31.6) 64 (28.2) LVEF (%) 52.9 ± 15.0 54.4 ± 14.2 55.3 ± 16.8 53.7 ± 14.8 0.60 Aortic valve area (cm ) 0.6 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.2 0.65 Aortic valve mean gradient (mmHg) 47.0 ± 13.8 41.7 ± 12.3 43.1 ± 15.6 44.8 ± 13.6 0.045 Aortic valve peak velocity (m/s) 4.4 ± 0.6 4.2 ± 0.6 4.3 ± 0.8 4.3 ± 0.6 0.047 Low gradient AS , n (%) 24 (18) 11 (12.5) 2 (10) 37 (15.4) 0.42 Moderate or severe MR, n (%) 47 (38.5) 33 (38.4) 7 (36.8) 87 (38.3) 0.99 Valve sheath access site n (%) 0.41 Transfemoral 93 (69.9) 56 (63.6) 13 (65) 162 (67.2) Transapical 15 (11.3) 20 (22.7) 4 (20) 39 (16.2) Transaortic 24 (18) 11 (12.5) 3 (15) 38 (15.8) Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 75 Table 1 continued AP (n = 133) SAC (n = 88) TT (n = 20) Overall (n = 241) p value Other 1 (0.8) 1 (1.1) 0 (0) 2 (0.8) Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation AP antiplatelet therapy, SAC single antiplatelet plus oral anticoagulant therapy, TT triple therapy, BMI body mass index, DVT deep venous thrombosis, PE pulmonary embolism, ATRIA anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation, OAC oral anticoagulation, GI gastrointestinal, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, NYHA New York Heart Association, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, AS aortic stenosis, MR mitral regurgitation Defined as aortic valve mean gradient \ 40 mmHg, left ventricular ejection fraction \ 50%, and aortic valve area \1cm when fewer antithrombotic agents are used, omitting an anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation (or another indication for OAC) significantly increases the risk of throm- boembolism, which often has more serious clinical consequences than bleeding. The relatively low number of patients, espe- cially in the TT group, is an important limita- tion of our study. Additionally, patients in the TT and SAC groups had higher rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and an indication for OAC, which could have led to confounding by indi- cation despite our use bootstrap resampling. Patients were categorized based on antithrom- Fig. 1 Kaplan–Meier time-to-event curves for the primary botic regimen at the latest time of follow-up, composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and results could differ if an intention-to-treat stroke, or major bleeding stratified by treatment group. analysis was carried out. The patients we studied TAVR transcatheter aortic valve replacement, HR hazard represent a high-risk cohort, as evidenced by ratio, CI confidence interval, AP antiplatelet therapy, SAC the large burden of co-morbidities and high single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant therapy, TT triple 2-year mortality rate. Thus, our results may not therapy be applicable to lower-risk patients. Lastly, our study is observational in nature, and random- after TAVR, which is consistent with findings ized trials are needed to determine the optimal from other studies of patients undergoing TAVR antithrombotic regimen after TAVR in patients with and without an indication for anticoagu- [17, 18] and surgical aortic valve replacement [19]. We did not observe a benefit on ischemic lation. The recently reported aspirin versus aspirin ? clopidogrel following transcatheter endpoints with regimens using 2 or 3 antithrombotics compared to AP alone, as rates aortic valve implantation (ARTE) trial demon- of MI and stroke were similar among the three strated that aspirin monotherapy reduced risk treatment groups, but the study was not pow- of bleeding, without increasing the risk of MI or ered to do so. In addition to higher rates of stroke, compared to DAPT in TAVR patients bleeding with TT and SAC, we observed a higher [20]. Ongoing trials include ATLANTIS mortality rate with these treatment strategies (NCT02664649), AUREA (NCT01642134), AVA- TAR (NCT02735902), ENVISAGE-TAVR compared to AP. Importantly, our analysis shows that these effects persisted over a period (NCT02943785), GALILEO (NCT02556203), POPular-TAVI (NCT02247128), and TICTAVR of 2 years. However, while bleeding is reduced (NCT02817789). The results of these trials will 76 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 likely inform future guidelines and clinical 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend- decision-making. ments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study. CONCLUSIONS Data Availability. The datasets during and/ In a consecutive series of patients from our or analyzed during the current study are avail- institution undergoing TAVR between 2009 and able from the corresponding author on reason- 2014, treatment with triple therapy or a single able request. antiplatelet agent plus an oral anticoagulant was associated with an increased risk of the Open Access. This article is distributed composite of death, MI, stroke, or major under the terms of the Creative Commons bleeding at 2 years compared to treatment with Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International antiplatelet therapy alone, even after multi- License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ variable adjustment. Further prospective inves- by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial tigations to determine the optimal use, distribution, and reproduction in any antithrombotic regimen in TAVR patients are medium, provided you give appropriate credit awaited. to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the participants of the study. REFERENCES Funding. No funding or sponsorship was 1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, received for this study or publication of this Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve article. implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607. Authorship. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal 2. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus surgi- cal aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. article, take responsibility for the integrity of N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98. the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published. 3. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, Yakubov SJ, Coselli JS, Deeb GM, et al. Transcatheter aortic- Disclosures. Robert P. Giugliano reports valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8. research grant support from Daiichi Sankyo and Merck to his institution, and honoraria for CME 4. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson programs and/or consultancy from Boehringer LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic- Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi San- valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20. kyo, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Servier. Anu- bodh Varshney, Ryan A. Watson, Andrew Noll, 5. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman KyungAh Im, Jeffrey Rossi and Pinak Shah have NS, Søndergaard L, Mumtaz M, et al. Surgical or nothing to disclose. transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in interme- diate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321–31. Compliance with Ethics Guidelines. All 6. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtlander T, procedures performed in this study were in Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after accordance with the ethical standards of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a Institutional Review Board of Partners Health- meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:129–38. care in Boston, Massachusetts and with the Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 77 7. Ge´ne´reux P, Cohen DJ, Mack M, Rodes-Cabau J, 14. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Ge´ne´reux P, Piazza N, van Yadav M, Xu K, et al. Incidence, predictors, and Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, et al. Updated stan- prognostic impact of late bleeding complications dardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2605–15. Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1438–54. 8. Khatri PJ, Webb JG, Rode´s-Cabau J, Fremes SE, Ruel M, Lau K, et al. Adverse effects associated with 15. Austin PC, Tu JV. Bootstrap methods for developing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta- predictive models. Am Stat. 2004;58:131–7. analysis of contemporary studies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:35–46. 16. Carnicelli AP, O’Gara PT, Giugliano RP. Anticoag- ulation after heart valve replacement or tran- 9. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, scatheter valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. Erwin JP, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guide- 2016;118:1419–26. line for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of 17. Abdul-Jawad Altisent O, Durand E, Mun ˜oz-Garcı´a Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force AJ, Nombela-Franco L, Cheema A, Kefer J, et al. on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. Warfarin and antiplatelet therapy versus warfarin 2014;63:e57–185. alone for treating patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. 10. Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1706–17. Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Association for Cardio-Thoracic 18. Stanger DE, Abdulla AH, Wong FT, Alipour S, Surgery (EACTS), Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Bressler BL, Wood DA, et al. Upper gastrointestinal Antunes MJ, et al. Guidelines on the management bleeding following transcatheter aortic valve of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. replacement: a retrospective analysis. Cathet Car- 2012;33:2451–96. diovasc Interv. 2017;90:E53–61. 11. Webb J, Rode´s-Cabau J, Fremes S, Pibarot P, Ruel M, 19. Riaz H, Alansari SAR, Khan MS, Riaz T, Raza S, Luni Ibrahim R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve FK, et al. Safety and use of anticoagulation after implantation: a Canadian Cardiovascular Society aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses: a position statement. Can J Cardiol. 2012;28:520–8. meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9:294–302. 12. Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Kaul S, Agnihotri A, Alexander KP, Bailey SR, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/ 20. Rode´s-Cabau J, Masson J-B, Welsh RC, Garcia Del SCAI/STS expert consensus document on tran- Blanco B, Pelletier M, Webb JG, et al. Aspirin versus scatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Car- aspirin plus clopidogrel as antithrombotic treat- diol. 2012;59:1200–54. ment following transcatheter aortic valve replace- ment with a balloon-expandable valve: the ARTE 13. Rossi JE, Noll A, Bergmark B, McCabe JM, Nemer D, (aspirin versus aspirin ? clopidogrel following Okada DR, et al. Variability in antithrombotic transcatheter aortic valve implantation) random- therapy regimens peri-TAVR: a single academic ized clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. center experience. Cardiol Ther. 2015;4:197–201. 2017;10:1357–65. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cardiology and Therapy Springer Journals

Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Free
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/impact-of-antithrombotic-regimen-on-mortality-ischemic-and-bleeding-4s3sZs4Lh3
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Internal Medicine; Cardiology
ISSN
2193-8261
eISSN
2193-6544
D.O.I.
10.1007/s40119-018-0111-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-018-0111-4 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Impact of Antithrombotic Regimen on Mortality, Ischemic, and Bleeding Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement . . . Anubodh Varshney Ryan A. Watson Andrew Noll . . . KyungAh Im Jeffrey Rossi Pinak Shah Robert P. Giugliano Received: March 30, 2018 / Published online: May 19, 2018 The Author(s) 2018 2014. Antithrombotic regimens were classified ABSTRACT as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (AP), single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant (SAC), or triple Introduction: Optimal antithrombotic therapy therapy (TT). The primary endpoint was a after transcatheter aortic valve replacement composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), (TAVR) remains unclear. We evaluated the stroke, and major bleeding. Adjusted hazard association between antithrombotic regimens ratios (HRs) were obtained with best subset and outcomes in TAVR patients. variable selection methods using bootstrap Methods: We retrospectively analyzed consec- resampling. utive patients who underwent TAVR at a single Results: Of 246 patients who underwent TAVR, academic center from April 2009 to March 241 were eligible for analysis with 133, 88, and Enhanced digital features To view enhanced digital 20 patients in the AP, SAC, and TT groups, features for this article, go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ respectively. During a median 2.1-year follow- m9.figshare.6205685. up, 53.5% had at least one endpoint—the most common was death (68%), followed by major A. Varshney bleeding (23%), stroke (6%), and MI (3%). At Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Medicine and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 2 years, the composite outcome occurred in USA 70% of TT, 42% of SAC, and 31% of AP patients. Compared to AP, adjusted HRs for the com- R. A. Watson Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, posite outcome were 2.88 [95% Confidence Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, intervals (CI) (1.61–5.16); p = 0.0004] and 1.66 USA (95% CI [1.13-2.42]; p = 0.009) in the TT and A. Noll  J. Rossi SAC groups, respectively. Mortality rates at Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland 2 years were 61% in the TT, 32% in the SAC, Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA and 26% in the AP groups (p = 0.005). Conclusions: The risk of the composite out- K. Im  R. P. Giugliano (&) Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study come of death, MI, stroke, or major bleeding at Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard 2-year follow-up was significantly higher in Medical School, Boston, MA, USA TAVR patients treated with TT or SAC versus AP, e-mail: rgiugliano@partners.org even after multivariate adjustment. P. Shah  R. P. Giugliano Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Keywords: Antithrombosis; Aortic stenosis; Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 72 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 procedural characteristics were collected. INTRODUCTION Patients were then prospectively followed for ascertainment of study outcomes. The Institu- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) tional Review Board of Partners Healthcare in has become an established treatment for Boston, Massachusetts, approved the study, and patients with symptomatic, severe aortic signed informed consent was obtained from stenosis with intermediate, high, or prohibitive each patient. All procedures performed in surgical risk [1–5]. Despite advances in patient studies involving human participants were in selection, operator experience, and valve deliv- accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration ery systems, ischemic and bleeding complica- and its later amendments or comparable ethical tions remain important concerns after TAVR, as standards. they are associated with increased morbidity and mortality [6–8]. However, limited data are available comparing long-term outcomes with Antithrombotic Regimen varying antithrombotic regimens after TAVR. Current guidelines recommend dual anti- The antithrombotic regimen was noted pre- platelet therapy with aspirin (indefinitely) and TAVR, at the time of discharge from TAVR clopidogrel (for 1–6 months) after TAVR in admission, at 30 days, at 1 year, and through patients with no indication for therapeutic oral April 2016 using electronic health records and anticoagulation (OAC). In patients with an telephone follow-up. Antithrombotic regimens indication for OAC, guidelines generally rec- were classified as single or dual antiplatelet ommend against the use of triple therapy therapy only (AP), single antiplatelet plus anti- [9–12]. However, these recommendations have coagulant therapy (SAC), or triple therapy (TT) been made empirically and vary amongst pro- with DAPT plus OAC. Patients were grouped fessional societies, leading to heterogeneity in according to the antithrombotic regimen at the clinical practice [13]. time of latest follow-up for the purposes of the We sought to examine the association statistical analysis. between different antithrombotic regimens and the risk of mortality, ischemic, and bleeding Outcomes outcomes in a non-selected clinical population undergoing TAVR. Specifically, we compared The primary endpoint was the composite of outcomes among TAVR patients prescribed death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or single or dual antiplatelet therapy (AP), a single major bleeding (requiring hospitalization, life- antiplatelet agent plus OAC (SAC), or triple threatening, or fatal). Outcomes were assessed therapy (TT) with dual antiplatelet therapy according to Valve Academic Research Consor- (DAPT) and OAC. tium-2 definitions [14] at discharge, 30 days, 1 year, and through April 2016 using electronic medical record data and telephone follow-up METHODS with a standardized questionnaire. Study Population Statistical Analysis We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at Brigham and To determine associations between antithrom- Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, botic therapy group and the primary composite from April 2009 through March 2014. Baseline outcome, a Cox proportional hazards model medical history, routine laboratory testing, was used. A multivariable model was developed electrocardiography, echocardiography, with best subset variable selection methods CHA2DS2-VASc score, ATRIA score, New York using bootstrap resampling in order to account Heart Association functional classification, pre- for model variation due to small sample size procedure antithrombotic regimen, and TAVR [15]. The final model included adjustment for Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 73 chronic lung disease, prior percutaneous coro- (Fig. 1). Mortality rates at 2 years were 61%, nary intervention (PCI), male sex, age, and low- 32%, and 26% (p = 0.005) in the TT, SAC, and gradient aortic stenosis (defined as left ventric- AP groups, respectively, while major bleeding ular ejection fraction \ 50%, aortic valve rates were 29%, 18%, and 9.1%, respectively area \ 1.0 cm , and mean aortic valve gradi- (p = 0.02). Rates of stroke and MI were low and ent \ 40 mmHg). Results are reported as adjus- similar among groups. ted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence A total of 132 patients in the cohort had an intervals (CI). Proportional hazards assumption indication for OAC (88.6% had atrial fibrillation for the final model was assessed by score tests or flutter), including 40 in the AP group, 76 in using scaled Schoenfeld residuals. Crude the SAC group, and 16 in the TT group. Among cumulative event rates were calculated by the patients with an indication for OAC, the com- complement of Kaplan–Meier survival esti- posite outcome occurred in 69% of TT, 38% of mates, and log-rank test p values are also SAC, and 38% of AP patients (p = 0.06) at 2-year reported. All reported p values are two-sided, follow-up. and significance level was set at alpha 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 DISCUSSION (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). This study evaluated the association between RESULTS post-TAVR antithrombotic regimen and the composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or Table 1 outlines the baseline characteristics of major bleeding in a single-center cohort of 241 each study group. A total of 246 patients consecutive patients with at least 2-year follow- underwent TAVR from April 2009 to March up. Patients treated with TT or SAC versus AP 2014. Of these, five patients were excluded for had a higher incidence of the composite out- the following reasons: prescribed no come, even after multivariate adjustment. This antithrombotic therapy (n = 2) and incomplete finding was driven by an increase in both mor- post-discharge follow-up (n = 3), leaving 241 tality and major bleeding in the TT and SAC patients for final analysis. The baseline charac- groups. teristics among the AP (n = 133), SAC (n = 88), TAVR patients are at high risk for both and TT (n = 20) groups were similar, with the ischemic and bleeding events by virtue of co- exception of rates of atrial fibrillation or flutter morbidities and the procedure itself. Both types (p \ 0.01), indication for OAC (p \ 0.01), aortic of complications are associated with increased valve mean gradient (p = 0.044), and aortic morbidity and mortality. Moreover, TAVR valve peak velocity (p = 0.047) (Table 1). Over- patients frequently undergo pre-emptive coro- all, 67.2% of cases were done with a trans- nary artery stenting, which necessitates DAPT, femoral approach, while 16.2% and 15.8% of and approximately half have atrial fibrillation cases were performed via a transapical and requiring OAC. Given this complex interplay, transaortic approach, respectively. identifying an antithrombotic regimen that Of the 241 patients followed for a median of achieves an optimal balance between ischemic 2.1 years (interquartile range, 0.7–2.9 years), protection and bleeding risk mitigation is 53.5% (n = 129) had at least one endpoint. The paramount in this patient population. Never- components of the composite outcome in the theless, guideline recommendations for cohort were distributed as death (68%), major antithrombotic therapy after TAVR remain bleeding (23%), stroke (6%), and MI (3%) at empiric, and are extrapolated from the PCI 2-year follow-up. The risk of the composite experience and early TAVR clinical trial proto- outcome was highest with TT (70%; HR 2.88, cols [16]. 95% CI 1.61–5.16, p = 0.0004) and intermediate Our analysis indicates that treatment with with SAC (42%; HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.13–2.42, TT or SAC is associated with adverse clinical p = 0.009), compared to AP (31%) at 2 years outcomes compared to treatment with AP alone 74 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 Table 1 Patient characteristics by study group AP (n = 133) SAC (n = 88) TT (n = 20) Overall (n = 241) p value Age (years) 80.9 ± 10.0 81.0 ± 7.9 80.9 ± 6.3 80.9 ± 9.0 0.68 Male sex, n (%) 63 (47.4) 53 (60.2) 12 (60) 128 (53.1) 0.14 BMI (kg/m ) 26.6 ± 7.4 28.2 ± 5.9 28.1 ± 5.3 27.3 ± 6.8 0.053 Atrial fibrillation or flutter, n (%) 31 (23.3) 72 (81.8) 14 (70) 117 (48.5) \0.001 Prior DVT/PE, n (%) 9 (6.8) 11 (12.5) 2 (10) 22 (9.1) 0.35 CHA2DS2-VASc score 5.2 ± 1.3 5.5 ± 1.2 5.7 ± 1.1 5.4 ± 1.3 0.10 ATRIA score 2.7 ± 1.0 2.7 ± 0.8 3.1 ± 0.8 2.7 ± 0.9 0.20 Indication for OAC, n (%) 40 (30.1) 76 (86.4) 16 (80) 132 (54.8) \0.001 Prior GI bleeding, n (%) 23 (17.3) 9 (10.2) 4 (20) 36 (14.9) 0.28 Dyslipidemia, n (%) 105 (78.9) 72 (81.8) 20 (100) 197 (81.7) 0.076 Hypertension, n (%) 117 (88) 81 (92) 20 (100) 218 (90.5) 0.19 Diabetes mellitus, n (%) 52 (39.1) 37 (42) 7 (35) 96 (39.8) 0.82 Prior PCI, n (%) 37 (27.8) 25 (28.4) 9 (45) 71 (29.5) 0.28 Peripheral arterial disease, n (%) 30 (22.6) 19 (21.6) 6 (30) 55 (22.8) 0.72 Cerebrovascular disease, n (%) 14 (10.5) 16 (18.2) 4 (20) 34 (14.1) 0.20 Chronic lung disease, n (%) 49 (36.8) 41 (46.6) 8 (40) 98 (40.7) 0.35 On hemodialysis, n (%) 5 (3.8) 2 (2.3) 1 (5) 8 (3.3) 0.76 NYHA class, n (%) 0.86 I 0 (0) 1 (1.2) 0 (0) 1 (0.4) II 7 (5.7) 5 (5.9) 2 (10.5) 14 (6.2) III 82 (66.7) 55 (64.7) 11 (57.9) 148 (65.2) IV 34 (27.6) 24 (28.2) 6 (31.6) 64 (28.2) LVEF (%) 52.9 ± 15.0 54.4 ± 14.2 55.3 ± 16.8 53.7 ± 14.8 0.60 Aortic valve area (cm ) 0.6 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.2 0.65 Aortic valve mean gradient (mmHg) 47.0 ± 13.8 41.7 ± 12.3 43.1 ± 15.6 44.8 ± 13.6 0.045 Aortic valve peak velocity (m/s) 4.4 ± 0.6 4.2 ± 0.6 4.3 ± 0.8 4.3 ± 0.6 0.047 Low gradient AS , n (%) 24 (18) 11 (12.5) 2 (10) 37 (15.4) 0.42 Moderate or severe MR, n (%) 47 (38.5) 33 (38.4) 7 (36.8) 87 (38.3) 0.99 Valve sheath access site n (%) 0.41 Transfemoral 93 (69.9) 56 (63.6) 13 (65) 162 (67.2) Transapical 15 (11.3) 20 (22.7) 4 (20) 39 (16.2) Transaortic 24 (18) 11 (12.5) 3 (15) 38 (15.8) Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 75 Table 1 continued AP (n = 133) SAC (n = 88) TT (n = 20) Overall (n = 241) p value Other 1 (0.8) 1 (1.1) 0 (0) 2 (0.8) Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation AP antiplatelet therapy, SAC single antiplatelet plus oral anticoagulant therapy, TT triple therapy, BMI body mass index, DVT deep venous thrombosis, PE pulmonary embolism, ATRIA anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation, OAC oral anticoagulation, GI gastrointestinal, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention, NYHA New York Heart Association, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, AS aortic stenosis, MR mitral regurgitation Defined as aortic valve mean gradient \ 40 mmHg, left ventricular ejection fraction \ 50%, and aortic valve area \1cm when fewer antithrombotic agents are used, omitting an anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation (or another indication for OAC) significantly increases the risk of throm- boembolism, which often has more serious clinical consequences than bleeding. The relatively low number of patients, espe- cially in the TT group, is an important limita- tion of our study. Additionally, patients in the TT and SAC groups had higher rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and an indication for OAC, which could have led to confounding by indi- cation despite our use bootstrap resampling. Patients were categorized based on antithrom- Fig. 1 Kaplan–Meier time-to-event curves for the primary botic regimen at the latest time of follow-up, composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and results could differ if an intention-to-treat stroke, or major bleeding stratified by treatment group. analysis was carried out. The patients we studied TAVR transcatheter aortic valve replacement, HR hazard represent a high-risk cohort, as evidenced by ratio, CI confidence interval, AP antiplatelet therapy, SAC the large burden of co-morbidities and high single antiplatelet plus anticoagulant therapy, TT triple 2-year mortality rate. Thus, our results may not therapy be applicable to lower-risk patients. Lastly, our study is observational in nature, and random- after TAVR, which is consistent with findings ized trials are needed to determine the optimal from other studies of patients undergoing TAVR antithrombotic regimen after TAVR in patients with and without an indication for anticoagu- [17, 18] and surgical aortic valve replacement [19]. We did not observe a benefit on ischemic lation. The recently reported aspirin versus aspirin ? clopidogrel following transcatheter endpoints with regimens using 2 or 3 antithrombotics compared to AP alone, as rates aortic valve implantation (ARTE) trial demon- of MI and stroke were similar among the three strated that aspirin monotherapy reduced risk treatment groups, but the study was not pow- of bleeding, without increasing the risk of MI or ered to do so. In addition to higher rates of stroke, compared to DAPT in TAVR patients bleeding with TT and SAC, we observed a higher [20]. Ongoing trials include ATLANTIS mortality rate with these treatment strategies (NCT02664649), AUREA (NCT01642134), AVA- TAR (NCT02735902), ENVISAGE-TAVR compared to AP. Importantly, our analysis shows that these effects persisted over a period (NCT02943785), GALILEO (NCT02556203), POPular-TAVI (NCT02247128), and TICTAVR of 2 years. However, while bleeding is reduced (NCT02817789). The results of these trials will 76 Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 likely inform future guidelines and clinical 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amend- decision-making. ments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all indi- vidual participants included in the study. CONCLUSIONS Data Availability. The datasets during and/ In a consecutive series of patients from our or analyzed during the current study are avail- institution undergoing TAVR between 2009 and able from the corresponding author on reason- 2014, treatment with triple therapy or a single able request. antiplatelet agent plus an oral anticoagulant was associated with an increased risk of the Open Access. This article is distributed composite of death, MI, stroke, or major under the terms of the Creative Commons bleeding at 2 years compared to treatment with Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International antiplatelet therapy alone, even after multi- License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ variable adjustment. Further prospective inves- by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial tigations to determine the optimal use, distribution, and reproduction in any antithrombotic regimen in TAVR patients are medium, provided you give appropriate credit awaited. to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the participants of the study. REFERENCES Funding. No funding or sponsorship was 1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, received for this study or publication of this Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve article. implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607. Authorship. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal 2. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus surgi- cal aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. article, take responsibility for the integrity of N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98. the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published. 3. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, Yakubov SJ, Coselli JS, Deeb GM, et al. Transcatheter aortic- Disclosures. Robert P. Giugliano reports valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8. research grant support from Daiichi Sankyo and Merck to his institution, and honoraria for CME 4. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson programs and/or consultancy from Boehringer LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic- Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi San- valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20. kyo, Merck, Pfizer, Portola, and Servier. Anu- bodh Varshney, Ryan A. Watson, Andrew Noll, 5. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman KyungAh Im, Jeffrey Rossi and Pinak Shah have NS, Søndergaard L, Mumtaz M, et al. Surgical or nothing to disclose. transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in interme- diate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321–31. Compliance with Ethics Guidelines. All 6. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtlander T, procedures performed in this study were in Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH. Risk of stroke after accordance with the ethical standards of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a Institutional Review Board of Partners Health- meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:129–38. care in Boston, Massachusetts and with the Cardiol Ther (2018) 7:71–77 77 7. Ge´ne´reux P, Cohen DJ, Mack M, Rodes-Cabau J, 14. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Ge´ne´reux P, Piazza N, van Yadav M, Xu K, et al. Incidence, predictors, and Mieghem NM, Blackstone EH, et al. Updated stan- prognostic impact of late bleeding complications dardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2605–15. Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1438–54. 8. Khatri PJ, Webb JG, Rode´s-Cabau J, Fremes SE, Ruel M, Lau K, et al. Adverse effects associated with 15. Austin PC, Tu JV. Bootstrap methods for developing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta- predictive models. Am Stat. 2004;58:131–7. analysis of contemporary studies. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:35–46. 16. Carnicelli AP, O’Gara PT, Giugliano RP. Anticoag- ulation after heart valve replacement or tran- 9. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, scatheter valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. Erwin JP, Guyton RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guide- 2016;118:1419–26. line for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of 17. Abdul-Jawad Altisent O, Durand E, Mun ˜oz-Garcı´a Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force AJ, Nombela-Franco L, Cheema A, Kefer J, et al. on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. Warfarin and antiplatelet therapy versus warfarin 2014;63:e57–185. alone for treating patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. 10. Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:1706–17. Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), European Association for Cardio-Thoracic 18. Stanger DE, Abdulla AH, Wong FT, Alipour S, Surgery (EACTS), Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Bressler BL, Wood DA, et al. Upper gastrointestinal Antunes MJ, et al. Guidelines on the management bleeding following transcatheter aortic valve of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J. replacement: a retrospective analysis. Cathet Car- 2012;33:2451–96. diovasc Interv. 2017;90:E53–61. 11. Webb J, Rode´s-Cabau J, Fremes S, Pibarot P, Ruel M, 19. Riaz H, Alansari SAR, Khan MS, Riaz T, Raza S, Luni Ibrahim R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve FK, et al. Safety and use of anticoagulation after implantation: a Canadian Cardiovascular Society aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses: a position statement. Can J Cardiol. 2012;28:520–8. meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9:294–302. 12. Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Kaul S, Agnihotri A, Alexander KP, Bailey SR, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/ 20. Rode´s-Cabau J, Masson J-B, Welsh RC, Garcia Del SCAI/STS expert consensus document on tran- Blanco B, Pelletier M, Webb JG, et al. Aspirin versus scatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Car- aspirin plus clopidogrel as antithrombotic treat- diol. 2012;59:1200–54. ment following transcatheter aortic valve replace- ment with a balloon-expandable valve: the ARTE 13. Rossi JE, Noll A, Bergmark B, McCabe JM, Nemer D, (aspirin versus aspirin ? clopidogrel following Okada DR, et al. Variability in antithrombotic transcatheter aortic valve implantation) random- therapy regimens peri-TAVR: a single academic ized clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. center experience. Cardiol Ther. 2015;4:197–201. 2017;10:1357–65.

Journal

Cardiology and TherapySpringer Journals

Published: May 19, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off