Safety and Efficacy of Different Antithrombotic Strategies after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Network Meta-Analysis

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Versus Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Agents After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing long-term outcomes between non-vitamin K antagonist (VKA) oral anticoagulant agents (direct oral anticoagulant agents [DOACs]) and VKA anticoagulant agents after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are scarce, with conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the periprocedural, short-term, and long-term safety and effectiveness of DOACs vs VKAs in patients undergoing TAVR via femoral access with concomitant indications for oral anticoagulation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR in the prospective national SwissTAVI Registry between February 2011 and June 2021 were analyzed. Net clinical benefit (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and life-threatening or major bleeding) and the primary safety endpoint (a composite of life-threatening and major bleeding) were compared between the VKA and DOAC groups at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years after TAVR.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity score matching, 1,454 patients were available for analysis in each group. There was no significant difference in the rate of the net clinical benefit and the safety endpoints between the groups as assessed at 30 days and 1 and 5 years post-TAVR between VKAs and DOACs. VKAs were associated with significantly higher rates of 1- year (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.01-1.62) and 5-year (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.11-1.40) all-cause mortality. Long-term risk for disabling stroke was significantly lower in the VKA group after excluding periprocedural events (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

At 5 years after TAVR, VKAs are associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality, a lower risk for disabling stroke, and a similar rate of life-threatening or major bleeding compared with DOACs. (SwissTAVI Registry; NCT01368250).

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Overview

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established procedure for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. The optimal antithrombotic regimen following TAVR, currently unknown and inconsistently applied, is impacted by thromboembolic risk, frailty, bleeding risk, and comorbidities. There is a quickly growing body of literature examining the complex issues underlying antithrombotic regimens post-TAVR. This review provides an overview of thromboembolic and bleeding events following TAVR, summarizes the evidence regarding optimal antiplatelet and anticoagulant use post-TAVR, and highlights current challenges and future directions. By understanding appropriate indications and outcomes associated with different antithrombotic regimens post-TAVR, morbidity and mortality can be minimized in a generally frail and elderly patient population.

Access Site Bleeding Complications with NOACs versus VKAs in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Cardiac Implantable Device Intervention

There are no data on procedure-related bleeding outcome with non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) intervention. Our aim was to evaluate whether NOACs have a safety benefit even in terms of fewer hemorrhagic complications at the site of CIED implant. Consecutive AF patients receiving NOACs or VKAs at the time of CIED procedure were included in this observational, retrospective, and monocentric investigation. Primary endpoint was the incidence of post-intervention pocket hematoma. A total of 311 patients were enrolled, 146 on NOACs, and 165 on VKAs. The incidence of pocket hematoma was 3.4% in the NOAC versus 13.3% in the VKA group (p = 0.002). Primary outcome-free survival at 30-days was 96.6% in patients on NOACs and 86.0% in those on VKAs (p = 0.019). Multivariate analysis, adjusted by propensity-score calculation of inverse-probability-weighting, showed a significantly lower occurrence of pocket hematoma in patients receiving NOACs versus VKAs (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.96, p = 0.042). Such NOACs benefit was confirmed versus patients on VKAs without peri-procedural bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11–0.99, p = 0.048). The incidence of pocket infection, surgical pocket evacuation, ischemic events, and major bleeding complications at 30 days (secondary endpoints) was similar in the two groups. In conclusion, our data suggest that, among patients with AF undergoing implantable cardiac defibrillator or pacemaker intervention, the use of NOACs versus VKAs may be associated with significant reduction of post-procedural pocket hematoma, regardless of bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin in the VKA group. These results are hypothesis generating and need to be confirmed in a specific randomized study.