All-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease

An Evidence-Based Approach to Anticoagulation Therapy Comparing Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Network Meta-Analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a newer class of anticoagulants that inhibit factor Xa or factor IIa and include drugs such as rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, and dabigatran. Although vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been traditionally used to prevent thromboembolic events, DOACs have gained popularity because of their faster onset and offset of action and reduced need for monitoring. This study aimed to provide more data for anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation with bioprosthetic heart valves by incorporating all available trials to date. A search was performed across 5 electronic databases to identify relevant studies. We analyzed the data using a pooled risk ratio for categorical outcomes and used the I2 test to determine heterogeneity. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and the National Institutes of Health tool was used for observational studies. Our study included a frequentist network meta-analysis (MA) of the aggregate data to obtain the network estimates for the outcomes of interest. We retrieved 28 studies with a total of 74,660 patients with bioprosthetic heart valves. Our MA significantly showed that DOACs decrease the risk of all-cause bleeding (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 0.85, p >0.00001), stroke and systemic embolization (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99, p = 0.03), and intracranial bleeding outcomes (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86, p = 0.004) compared with VKA. In contrast, there was no significant difference between the compared groups in major bleeding (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, p = 0.10) and all-cause mortality outcomes (RR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, p = 0.43), respectively. In addition, the network MA results did not favor any of the studied interventions over each other (p <0.05) regarding all-cause bleeding, mortality, stroke and systemic embolization, and major bleeding outcomes. In conclusion, our study found that DOACs are more effective in reducing the risk of bleeding, stroke, systemic embolism, and intracranial bleeding than VKAs. However, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and all-cause mortality. In addition, our network MA did not identify any specific DOAC treatment as more favorable than others.

Thromboembolism and Major Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and EHRA Type 2 Valvular Heart Disease: The Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib) Study

Aim

The risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients were assessed according to the "Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial" (EHRA) classification. Additionally, the safety and efficacy of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were compared in AF patients with EHRA type 2 valvular heart disease (VHD) versus those with no VHD.

Methods

AF patients enrolled in the "Jordan Atrial Fibrillation (JoFib)" study were followed up for thromboembolic events and major bleeding at 30, 180, and 365 days. Patients in the EHRA type 2 VHD and non-VHD groups were sub-grouped to compare different OACs.

Results

2020 AF patients were recruited. The thromboembolic risk was higher in EHRA type 2 VHD patients compared to non-VHD controls. Major bleeding also occurred at higher rates in EHRA type 2 patients. In addition, NOACs were more effective in preventing thromboembolic events than VKAs and non-anticoagulation in EHRA type 2 VHD patients. Furthermore, EHRA type 2 VHD patients taking rivaroxaban had significantly less thromboembolic risk than their non-anticoagulated counterparts. At the same time, apixaban and warfarin did not significantly lower the risk of thromboembolism compared to non-anticoagulation.

Conclusion

AF patients with EHRA type 2 VHD are at significant risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding. Furthermore, NOACs were more effective than VKAs in preventing thromboembolic events in this group of patients without conferring an added risk of major bleeding. Moreover, rivaroxaban appears to be particularly efficacious.

Effect of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation with mitral or aortic stenosis: A review

Background

Several studies have summarized the clinical performance of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with mitral stenosis or aortic stenosis. The significance of this review was to provide clinicians the latest update of the clinical application of DOACs in managing this specific population.

Methods

Literatures from the PubMed database up to July 2022 were screened for inclusion. Studies on the effect of DOACs in patients suffering from AF with mitral or aortic stenosis were assessed for further selection.

Results

Results from four studies were gathered: the RISE MS trial, the DAVID-MS study, and two observational studies. In the Korean observational study with a 27-month follow-up duration and a sample population consisted of patients with mitral stenosis and AF, the thromboembolic events happened at a rate of 2.22%/ year in the DOAC group and 4.19%/year in the warfarin group (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.18–0.45). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred at rates of 0.49% and 0.93% in the DOAC and the warfarin groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.22–1.26). In the Danish observational study, which had a sample pool with AF patients with aortic stenosis, reported that the adjusted hazard ratios for thromboembolism and major bleeding were 1.62 (95% CI, 1.08–2.45) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.91) for DOACs compared with warfarin during 3 years of follow-up. In the RISE-MS trial involving AF patients with mitral stenosis, there were no differences in ischemic stroke, systemic embolic events, or major bleeding between the rivaroxaban vs. warfarin groups during a 1-year follow-up as well as equal rate of increased thrombogenicity in the left atrial appendage at 6 months. The rate of silent cerebral ischemia at 12 months was higher in the warfarin group (17.6%) than that in the rivaroxaban group (13.3%).

Conclusions

Current published studies supported DOACs' effectiveness in preventing thromboembolism in patients of AF with mitral or aortic stenosis. Further clinical trials could confirm these findings.

An Updated Meta-Analysis of DOACs vs. VKAs in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With Bioprosthetic Heart Valve

Background

Current guidelines recommend the utilization of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal anticoagulation strategy for AF patients with bioprosthetic heart valves (BPHV) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the effect of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this population.

Methods

We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until November 2021 for studies reporting the effect of DOACs versus VKAs in AF patients with BPHV. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the random-effects model with an inverse variance method.

Results

We selected four randomized clinical trials and seven observational studies (2236 DOAC- and 6403 VKAs-users). Regarding the effectiveness outcomes, there were no significant differences between DOACs and VKAs in stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.50–1.08), ischemic stroke (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.76–1.55), all-cause death (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.86–1.12), and cardiovascular death (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.40–1.80). In terms of the safety outcomes, DOACs was associated with lower risks of major bleeding (RR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.59–0.82) and intracranial bleeding (RR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.26–0.70), but the risks of any bleeding (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.65–1.13) and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.73–1.17) are not significantly different when compared with VKAs. The subgroup analysis with follow-up as a covariate revealed that the DOACs had lower risks of SSE (RR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.37–0.94) and major bleeding (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.58–0.81) in patients with a mean follow-up of more than 24 months, but no statistical differences were found in patients with the follow-up less than 24 months (SSE: RR = 1.10, 95%CI: 0.92–1.32; major bleeding: RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.42–2.01).

Conclusions

In AF with BPHV, patients on DOACs experienced a reduced risk of major bleeding and intracranial bleeding compared with VKAs, while the risks of stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality were similar.

Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolism in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Valvular Heart Disease-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: There is uncertainty as to which anticoagulant should be used in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular AF with valvular heart disease.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Clinicaltrials.gov from the inception of databases up until August 2, 2021, and the search was updated and finalized on October 17, 2021. The intervention group was DOACs and the control group was warfarin. The primary outcome was systemic embolism and stroke (SSE), and the secondary outcome was major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage. The pooled effect estimate was reported as the hazard ratio (HR) and odds ratio (OR).

Results: There were 21,185 patients from seven studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke and systemic embolism were lower in patients receiving DOACs [HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.67, 0.87), p < 0.001; I²: 5%] compared with warfarin. The subgroup analysis on RCTs showed the significant reduction of SSE in the DOACs group [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60, 0.89), p = 0.002; I²: 16%]. There was no significant difference in terms of major bleeding [HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.05), p = 0.18; I²: 69%]. Intracranial hemorrhage [HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.22, 0.80), p = 0.008; I²: 73%] were lower in the DOAC group.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that DOACs were associated with a lower risk of SSE and intracranial hemorrhage compared with patients receiving warfarin. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major bleeding.

Direct oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and heart valve surgery-a meta-analysis and systematic review

AIMS

Oral anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) could provide an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing bioprosthetic heart valve replacement or valve repair.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The aim of this meta-analysis was to review the safety and efficacy of DOAC in patients with surgical implanted bioprosthetic heart valves or valve repairs and AF including data from six clinical trials with a total of 1,857 patients. The efficacy and safety data of DOAC and VKA were pooled to perform random-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to assess statistical robustness. Death caused by cardiovascular cause or thromboembolic events were comparable (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.42-1.08; p = 0.10) as DOAC significantly reduced the risk for major bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88; p = 0.01) and thromboembolic stroke or systemic embolism rates (RR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p = 0.02). Rates for intracranial bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07-0.99; p = 0.05) show a trend toward fewer events in the DOAC group. Outcomes for major or minor bleeding events and all-cause mortality were comparable for DOAC and VKA.

CONCLUSION

Cumulative data analysis reveals that DOAC may provide an effective and safe alternative to VKA in patients with AF after surgically implanted bioprosthetic heart valves or repair with AF. Within a relatively heterogeneous study population, this meta-analysis shows a risk reduction of major bleedings and thromboembolic stroke or systemic embolisms for DOAC.

Effectiveness and Safety of NOAC Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Aortic Stenosis

Background

Guideline recommendations on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with aortic stenosis are based on studies including a low number of patients with aortic stenosis. The aim of this study was to estimate the effects of NOAC versus warfarin on thromboembolism and major bleeding among AF patients with aortic stenosis.

Methods and Results

We emulated a target trial using observational data from Danish nationwide registries between 2013 and 2018. Thromboembolism was defined as a hospital diagnosis of ischemic stroke and/or systemic embolism, and major bleeding was defined as a hospital diagnosis of intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or major or clinically relevant bleeding in other anatomic sites. Treatment effect estimates were based on an intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol approach. A total of 3726 patients with AF and aortic stenosis claimed a prescription for either a NOAC (2357 patients) or warfarin (1369 patients) and met the eligibility criteria for the trial. During 3 years of follow‐up, the adjusted hazard ratios for thromboembolism and major bleeding were 1.62 (95% CI, 1.08–2.45) and 0.73 (0.59–0.91) for NOAC compared with warfarin in the intention‐to‐treat analyses. Similar results were observed in the per‐protocol analyses.

Conclusions

In this observational study, we observed a higher risk of thromboembolism but a lower risk of major bleeding for treatment with NOACs compared with warfarin in patients with AF and aortic stenosis. This observation needs confirmation in large randomized trials in these commonly encountered patients.

Prognostic implications of valvular heart disease in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Background

Valvular heart disease (VHD) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a puzzling clinical entity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic effect of significant VHD (sVHD) among patients with non-valvular AF.

Methods

This is a post-hoc analysis of the MISOAC-AF trial (NCT02941978). Consecutive inpatients with non-valvular AF who underwent echocardiography were included. sVHD was defined as the presence of at least moderate aortic stenosis (AS) or aortic/mitral/tricuspid regurgitation (AR/MR/TR). Cox regression analyses with covariate adjustments were used for outcome prediction.

Results

In total, 983 patients with non-valvular AF (median age 76 [14] years) were analyzed over a median follow-up period of 32 [20] months. sVHD was diagnosed in 575 (58.5%) AF patients. sVHD was associated with all-cause mortality (21.6%/yr vs. 6.5%/yr; adjusted HR [aHR] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17–2.06; p = 0.02), cardiovascular mortality (16%/yr vs. 4%/yr; aHR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09–2.66; p = 0.02) and heart failure-hospitalization (5.8%/yr vs. 1.8%/yr; aHR 2.53, 95% CI 1.35–4.63; p = 0.02). The prognostic effect of sVHD was particularly evident in patients aged < 80 years and in those without history of heart failure (p for interaction < 0.05, in both subgroups). After multivariable adjustment, moderate/severe AS and TR were associated with mortality, while AS and MR with heart failure-hospitalization.

Conclusion

Among patients with non-valvular AF, sVHD was highly prevalent and beared high prognostic value across a wide spectrum of clinical outcomes, especially in patients aged < 80 years or in the absence of heart failure. Predominantly AS, as well as MR and TR, were associated with worse prognosis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02264-3.

The Characteristics, Long-Term Outcomes, Risk Factors, and Antithrombotic Therapy in Chinese Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves

Introduction: There were few data about the clinical profiles and long-term outcomes in Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valves.

Methods: The retrospective study enrolled 903 patients with bioprosthetic valve replacement at our hospital and discharged with a diagnosis of AF from January 2010 to December 2018.

Results: The median age was 65.6 (61.9–69.1) years, and 548 (60.7%) patients were women. During a follow-up period of 3.84 (2.64–5.51) years, 68 (1.8 per 100 person-years) patients died, 81 (2.1 per 100 person-years) patients developed thromboembolism, and 23 (0.6 per 100 person-years) patients experienced major bleeding. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, as a categorical variable (low, moderate, or high risk), predicted the risk of thromboembolism with the C-statistic of 0.6 (95% CI: 0.511–0.689, p = 0.046). The incidence of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score increment was 11.6 per 100 person-years, and the annual reclassification rate of stroke risk (from a low or moderate group to a higher group) was 12.7%. The current proportion of oral anticoagulants was 52.3, 59, and 63.2%, respectively, in the low, moderate, and high stroke risk groups. Age (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01–1.06, p = 0.01), left atrial size (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03–1.08, p < 0.001), and rheumatic heart disease (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.05–2.10, p = 0.025) were positively associated with the use of oral anticoagulants. The history of chronic kidney disease (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.76, p = 0.018), prior surgical ablation (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24–0.47, p < 0.001), and antiplatelet agent use (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.05–0.13, p < 0.001) were inversely related to the use of oral anticoagulants. Higher admission estimated glomerular filtration rate (HR: 0.515, 95% CI: 0.311–0.853, p = 0.01), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 0.961, 95% CI: 0.931–0.992, p = 0.014), concomitant surgical ablation (HR: 0.348, 95% CI: 0.171–0.711, p = 0.004), and rheumatic heart disease history (HR: 0.515, 95% CI: 0.311–0.853, p = 0.01) were associated with a lower risk of death. Surgical ablation (HR: 0.263, 95% CI: 0.133–0.519, p < 0.001) and oral anticoagulants (HR: 0.587, 95% CI: 0.375–0.918, p = 0.019) were related to a lower risk of thromboembolism.

Conclusion: Chinese patients with AF and bioprosthetic valve(s) were relatively young and had a high prevalence of rheumatic heart disease with few comorbidities. The percentage of mitral bioprosthetic valve replacement was high. The proportion of concomitant surgical ablation or surgical left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion was relatively low. The thromboembolic events were the major long-term adverse events. The anticoagulation therapy was underused in patients at moderate or high stroke risk. The CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was verified to be used for predicting stroke risk in this population. The stroke risk dynamically changed; it needed to be reestimated once the risk factor changed.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Can We Compare Direct Oral Anticoagulants to Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bio-Prosthetic Valves?

Background

There are no clear consensus guidelines on the indications and types of anticoagulation therapies in patients with bio-prosthetic valves either with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus rhythm. In our meta-analysis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of DOACs as compared to the standard treatment with warfarin in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves.

Methods

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies in the English language, and studies reporting patients with valvular heart disease that included bioprosthetic valvular disease. A systematic literature review using Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science was performed using the terms “Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant,” “Oral Anticoagulants,” “Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant,” “Atrial Fibrillation,” “Bioprosthetic Valve” for literature published prior to January 2021. Extraction of data from included studies was carried out independently by three reviewers from Covidence. We assessed the methodical rigor of the included studies using the modified Downs and Black checklist.

Results

Four RCTs and one observational study (n=1776) were included in our study. A random-effect model using RevMan (version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for data analysis. The pooled data showed that there was a non-significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism in the patients taking DOACs as compared to warfarin (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.29, 1.67; I² = 50%). The incidence of major bleeding was lower in the DOACs group; the difference was statistically significant (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.67; I² = 7%). The difference was not statistically significant for all-cause mortality in both groups (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.91, 1.67; I² = 0%).

Conclusion

Our results showed that there was no difference in the outcomes of stroke and systemic embolism between DOACs and warfarin but there were statistically significantly lower major bleeding events. We conclude that larger clinical trials are needed to assess the true safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves.

Off-label Use for Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Valvular Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Thrombus, Superficial Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Hypertension-a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical literature for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy for non-Food and Drug Administration approved indications.

DATA SOURCES

Articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and OVID databases were reviewed from 1946 through September 4, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Fully published studies assessing DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease (VHD), heart failure (HF), left ventricular thrombus (LVT), superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), or pulmonary hypertension (PH) were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Our review showed that DOACs are safe to use in patients with AF and VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valve. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily should be used with caution in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction until further evaluation is performed. Four retrospective studies for DOAC use in patients with LVT showed conflicting results. One phase 3 randomized controlled trial showed noninferiority of rivaroxaban to fondaparinux for SVT treatment. The use of DOACs for pulmonary arterial hypertension was not evaluated in any clinical study, but 2 retrospective studies for the use of DOACs in patients with chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH) showed similar efficacy between DOACs and warfarin.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review provides clinicians with a comprehensive literature review surrounding DOAC use in common off-label indications.

CONCLUSION

DOACs can be considered for AF complicated by VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical valve replacement. DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) are considered as an alternative therapy for SVT and CTEPH. Further prospective studies for DOAC uses are needed for HF or LVT.

Thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: A descriptive nationwide cohort study

AIMS

The risks of thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) are sparsely described. We described the risk of events in non-anticoagulated and anticoagulated patients with AF and VHD according to the evaluated heart valves, rheumatic or artificial valve classification (EHRA classification), EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, and within subgroups of EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cohort study of AF patients with coexisting VHD, identified in nationwide Danish registries from 2000 to 2018. Risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after 1 year of follow-up were calculated in each group. We identified 28 770 incident AF patients with VHD. Not surprisingly, we observed the highest risks of thromboembolism in the non-anticoagulated AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD (4.9% vs 2.6% and 3.2% vs 1.9%) and the highest risks of bleeding in the anticoagulated AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD (6.6% vs 4.3% and 6.1% vs 4.9%). However, within the subgroups of AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, we observed a large proportion of non-anticoagulated patients (32.9%-49.2%), despite a CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score of 2≤ in the majority of these patients (81.9%-95.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

When using data reflecting contemporary clinical practice, we observed markedly different risks of thromboembolism and bleeding in EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD. Additionally, we observed a potential underuse of oral anticoagulation within the subgroups of AF patients with EHRA Type 1 and Type 2 VHD, underlining need for further attention on this patient group.