Native valve disease in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation on warfarin or rivaroxaban

Atrial fibrillation in young stroke patients: Associated factors and outcomes in a nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Knowledge about the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in young stroke patients, as well as its associated factors and outcomes, is scarce. Our objective was to analyse it.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the Spain Nationwide Minimum Basic Data Set (MBDS) (2016-2020), including ischaemic stroke (IS) patients aged 18 and 50 years, was conducted. Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify factors related to AF diagnosis.

RESULTS

Amongst 11,615 young IS patients, 426 (3.7%) had AF. Patients with AF were older (median age 45, interquartile range 42-48 vs. 44, interquartile range 40-47 years, p < 0.001) and displayed more incapacitating symptoms, higher in-hospital complications and were less often discharged home (p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.053, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.032-1.074), obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 1.508, 95% CI 1.018-2.233), hyperthyroidism (OR 3.741, 95% CI 1.798-7.783), valvular heart disease (OR 6.094, 95% CI 4.261-8.716), congenital (OR 2.386, 95% CI 1.146-4.969) and non-congenital (OR 4.446, 95% CI 3.149-6.278) cardiopathies and heart failure (OR 3.098, 95% CI 1.905-5.037) were independently associated with higher probability of AF, whereas female gender (OR 0.647, 95% CI 0.516-0.812), diabetes mellitus (0.487, 95% CI 0.339-0.699), smoking (OR 0.617, 95% CI 0.501-0.759), patent foramen ovale (OR 0.210, 95% CI 0.111-0.396) and arterial dissection (OR 0.294, 95% CI 0.130-0.668) were associated with a lower probability.

CONCLUSIONS

In young IS patients, AF is associated with more in-hospital complications and disabling strokes. These findings emphasize the need to recognize AF in this demographic group, especially in patients with risk factors like hyperthyroidism and cardiomyopathies. Clinicians should assess these risk factors to ensure timely diagnosis and management of AF.

Aortic Stenosis and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Background Patients with aortic stenosis (AS) have been underrepresented in the trials evaluating direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to assess whether AS impacts outcomes in patients with AF and estimate the effects of DOACs versus warfarin in patients with AF and AS. Methods and Results The registry-based FinACAF (Finnish Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation) study covered all patients with AF diagnosed during 2007 to 2018 in Finland. Hazard ratios (HRs) of first-ever gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, any bleeding, ischemic stroke, and death were estimated with cause-specific hazards regression adjusted for anticoagulant exposure variables. We identified 183 946 patients (50.5% women; mean age, 71.7 [SD, 13.5] years) with incident AF without prior bleeding or ischemic stroke, of whom 5231 (2.8%) had AS. The crude incidence rate of all outcomes was higher in patients with AS than in patients without AS. After propensity score matching, AS was associated with the hazard of any bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and death but not with intracranial bleeding or ischemic stroke (adjusted HRs, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.25-1.48], 1.63 [95% CI, 1.43-1.86], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.26-1.38], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], and 1.11 [95% CI, 0.99-1.25], respectively). Among patients with AS, DOACs were associated with a lower risk of ischemic stroke when compared with warfarin, while bleeding and mortality did not differ between DOACs and warfarin. Conclusions AS is associated with substantially higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with AF. DOACs may be more effective in preventing ischemic stroke than warfarin in patients with AF and AS. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04645537.

Apixaban Versus Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease : A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Although apixaban and rivaroxaban are commonly used in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD), there is limited evidence comparing the 2 drugs in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To emulate a target trial of effectiveness and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban in patients with AF and VHD.

DESIGN

New-user, active comparator, cohort study design.

SETTING

Commercial health insurance database from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020.

PATIENTS

New users of apixaban or rivaroxaban who had a diagnosis of AF and VHD before initiation of anticoagulant therapy.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety outcome was a composite of gastrointestinal or intracranial bleeding. Cox proportional hazards regression with a robust variance estimator was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

When compared with rivaroxaban in a propensity score-matched cohort of 19 894 patients (9947 receiving each drug), apixaban was associated with a lower rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.80]) and bleeding (HR, 0.51 [CI, 0.41 to 0.62]). The absolute reduction in the probability of stroke or systemic embolism with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban was 0.0026 within 6 months and 0.011 within 1 year of treatment initiation. The absolute reduction in the probability of bleeding events with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban was 0.012 within 6 months and 0.019 within 1 year of treatment initiation.

LIMITATION

Short follow-up time and inability to ascertain some types of VHD.

CONCLUSION

In this study of patients with AF and VHD, patients receiving apixaban had a lower risk for ischemic stroke or systemic embolism and for bleeding when compared with those receiving rivaroxaban.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health.

Mitral Regurgitation and Body Mass Index Increase the Predictability of Perioperative Bleeding in Anticoagulated Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Background

Catheter ablation (CA) effectively restores sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF) but causes a short-term fluctuation in the coagulation state. Potential risk factors and better management during this perioperative period remain understudied.

Methods

We consecutively included 940 patients with nonvalvular AF who received CA at Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China. Patients were divided into two groups according to their bleeding status during 3 months' anticoagulation. Any adverse events related to bleeding in the 3 months were evaluated. The HAS-BLED score and ABC-bleeding score, as well as other potential factors, were explored to predict bleeding risk.

Results

In this observational study, 8.0% and 0.9% of the whole population suffered from bleeding and thromboembolic events, respectively. After adjusting for known factors related to bleeding, mitral regurgitation (MR, p for trend &lt;0.001) and body mass index (BMI, odds ratio (OR) = 0.920, 95% CI 0.852–0.993, p = 0.033) were the most significant ones. C-indexes of the HAS-BLED score and ABC-bleeding score for bleeding were 0.558 (0.492–0.624) and 0.585 (0.515–0.655), respectively. The incorporation of MR and BMI significantly improved the predictive value based on HAS-BLED score (C-index = 0.650, 95% CI 0.585–0.715, p = 0.004) and ABC-bleeding score (C-index = 0.671, 95% CI 0.611–0.731, p &lt; 0.001). The relative risk of mild-moderate MR was 4.500 (95% CI 1.625–12.460) in patients with AF having HAS-BLED = 1 and 4.654 (95% CI 1.496–14.475) in HAS-BLED ≥ 2, while it was not observed in patients with HAS-BLED = 0 (p = 0.722).

Conclusion

More severe MR and lower BMI are associated with a higher incidence of perioperative bleeding, which helps improve the predictability of increased individual bleeding risk of a patient with nonvalvular AF who has received CA therapy and oral anticoagulants.

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.

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.

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.

Characteristics and Prognosis of Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Significant Valvular Heart Disease Referred for Electrical Cardioversion

Valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is defined as AF in the presence of mitral stenosis or mechanical valve prosthesis. However, there are patients with AF who have significant native valvular heart disease (VHD) others than mitral stenosis that are classified as nonvalvular AF. The characteristics and prognostic implications of these entities have not been extensively studied. Of 1,885 AF patients referred for electrical cardioversion (64 ± 13years, 71% male), 171 (9.1%) had valvular AF (any grade of mitral stenosis or mechanical/biological valve prostheses) and 1,714 patients were identified as nonvalvular AF, of whom 329 (17.5%) had significant left-sided VHD. Patients with nonvalvular AF but with significant left-sided VHD were older, more frequently women and had more co-morbidities compared with the other groups. Furthermore, nonvalvular AF patients with significant left-sided VHD showed the worst left ventricular systolic function and largest left atrial volumes. During a median follow-up of 64 months (interquartile range: 33 to 96 months), 488 patients presented with the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and ischemic stroke. Patients with nonvalvular AF and with significant left-sided VHD had more events of heart failure whereas patients with valvular AF had higher all-cause mortality events. There were no differences in ischemic stroke events. Type of AF was not associated with outcomes after correcting for echocardiographic variables. In conclusion, the frequency of AF patients with significant VHD is relatively high. The consequences of VHD and AF on cardiac structure and function are more important determinants of adverse outcome than the type of AF.

Incidence of Ischemic Stroke in Individuals With and Without Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Danish Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Purpose- Aortic valve stenosis may lead to atrial and ventricular remodeling, predisposes to atrial fibrillation, and may also be an independent risk factor of ischemic stroke. However, information on stroke rates among persons with aortic valve stenosis are sparse. We aimed to determine the incidence rates and relative risks of ischemic stroke in individuals with diagnosed aortic valve stenosis compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Methods- All patients with incident aortic valve stenosis aged >18 years (n=79 310) and age- and sex-matched controls were identified using the Danish nationwide registries (1997-2017). Incidence rates per 1000 person-years (PY) and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CIs were reported. Results- In total, 873 373 individuals (median age 77 years, 51.5% men, 9.1% with aortic valve stenosis) were included. Ischemic stroke occurred in 70 205 (8.0%) individuals during 4 880 862 PY of follow-up. Incidence rates of ischemic stroke were 13.3/1000 PY among the controls compared with 30.4/1000 PY in patients with aortic valve stenosis, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.28-1.34). In all age-groups, the incidence rates and relative risks were significantly increased in patients with aortic valve stenosis compared with controls, but the relative risk was greater for younger individuals (eg, age group, 18-45 years: hazard ratio, 5.94 [95% CI, 4.10-8.36]). In patients with aortic valve stenosis above 65 years of age, the risk of ischemic stroke was markedly lower after aortic valve replacement (30.3 versus 19.6/1000 PY before and after valve replacement). Among people with atrial fibrillation the incidence rate of ischemic stroke was 1.5 times higher when aortic valve stenosis was present (33.0/1000 PY versus 49.9/1000 PY). Conclusions- People with aortic valve stenosis have a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Future studies are warranted to explore whether antithrombotic therapy may be beneficial in some individuals.

Aortic valve stenosis provides complementary information to bleeding risk scores in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients initiating anticoagulation

BACKGROUND

The identification of modifiable bleeding risk factors may be of relevance. The aim is to evaluate if aortic stenosis (AS) provides additional information to bleeding risk scores for predicting major bleeding (MB) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

We designed a retrospective multi-center study including 2880 consecutive non-valvular AF patients initiating oral anticoagulation between January 2013 and December 2016. AS was defined as moderate or severe according to European echocardiography guidelines criteria. HASBLED, ATRIA and ORBIT scores were used to evaluate the bleeding risk. MB was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasia criteria and registered at 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

168 (5.8%) patients had AS. Patients with AS had higher risk for MB compared to those without AS (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.40-3.23, P < 0.001). Patients without AS and low-intermediate bleeding risk (0 points) showed the lowest MB rate, whereas the MB rate observed among patients with AS and high bleeding risk (2 points) was the highest one. Discrimination and reclassification analyses showed that AS provided additional information to bleeding risk scores for predicting MB at 18 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, AS was associated with an increased risk for MB at midterm follow-up. The three scoring systems showed a moderate discriminatory ability for MB. Moreover, the addition of AS was associated with a significant improvement in their predictive accuracy. We suggest that the presence of this valvulopathy should be taken into account for bleeding risk assessment.

Thromboembolism and bleeding complications in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation and native aortic or mitral valvular heart disease: a descriptive nationwide cohort study

AIMS

To describe the risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding complications in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and native aortic or mitral valvular heart disease using data reflecting clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Descriptive cohort study of anticoagulated patients with incident AF and native aortic or mitral valvular heart disease, identified in nationwide Danish registries from 2000 to 2018. A total of 10 043 patients were included, of which 5190 (51.7%) patients had aortic stenosis, 1788 (17.8%) patients had aortic regurgitation, 327 (3.3%) patients had mitral stenosis, and 2738 (27.3%) patients had mitral regurgitation. At 1 year after AF diagnosis, the risk of thromboembolism was 4.6% in patients with mitral stenosis taking a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and 2.6% in patients with aortic stenosis taking a VKA or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC). For patients with aortic or mitral regurgitation, the risks of thromboembolism ranged between 1.5%-1.8% in both treatment groups. For the endpoint of major bleeding, the risk was ∼5.5% in patients with aortic stenosis or mitral stenosis treated with a VKA, and 3.3-4.0% in patients with aortic or mitral regurgitation. For patients treated with a NOAC, the risk of major bleeding was 3.7% in patients with aortic stenosis and ∼2.5% in patients with aortic or mitral regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

When using data reflecting contemporary clinical practice, our observations suggested that 1 year after a diagnosis of AF, anticoagulated patients with aortic or mitral valvular heart disease had dissimilar risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding complications. Specifically, patients with aortic stenosis or mitral stenosis were high-risk subgroups. This observation may guide clinicians regarding intensity of clinical follow-up.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

There are limited data for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) impact on outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart diseases (VHDs).

METHODS

We identified patients with AF and associated Evaluated Heartvalves, Rheumatic or Artificial (EHRA) type 2 VHDs, and who had been naïve from the oral anticoagulants in the Korean National Health Insurance Service database between 2014 and 2016 (warfarin: n = 2671; NOAC: n = 3058). For analyzing the effect of NOAC on primary prevention, we excluded those with a previous history of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding events. To balance covariates, we used the propensity score weighting method. Ischemic stroke, ICH, GI bleeding, major bleeding, all-cause death, and their composite outcome and fatal clinical events were evaluated.

RESULTS

During a follow-up with a mean duration of 1.4 years, NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.96), GI bleeding (HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.72), fatal ICH (HR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.07-0.83), and major bleeding (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.45-0.80) compared with warfarin. Overall, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide Asian AF population with EHRA type 2 VHDs, NOAC use was associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, all-cause death, and the composite outcome compared to warfarin use.

Comparison of the New Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

New oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are approved for use in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with warfarin in AF and valvular heart disease (VHD).

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses comparing NOACs and warfarin in AF and VHD, including biological and mechanical heart valves (MHV). Through systematic review and meta-analysis, with the aid of the "Rev Man" program 5.3, the primary effectiveness endpoints were stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, and the secondary outcome included intracranial hemorrhage. Data were analyzed using risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included, involving 13,850 patients with AF and VHD. NOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91; P = 0.002) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.79; P = 0.003) and lowered the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.58-1.02; P = 0.07) compared with warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of NOACs as thromboprophylaxis for AF and VHD are similar to those of warfarin.

Comparing clinical outcomes of NOACs with warfarin on atrial fibrillation with Valvular heart diseases: a meta-analysis

Background

Warfarin is the standard of care and NOAC (Novel oral anticoagulants) are a group of newer drugs for such purposes. NOAC has a generally better profile (Clear interaction, less side effect, require less monitoring). However, its efficacy on valvular atrial fibrillation remains unclear.

Method

We researched literature articles from Embase, Cochrane and PubMed. Then we meta-analysed these six articles to assess pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) using random-effects model for stroke, systemic embolic event, major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Heterogeneity across study was tested with Cochran’s Q Test and I² Test. The bias of studies was first tested by examining the symmetry of Funnel Plot. Cochrane’s Collaboration Tool was also used to report any presented bias.

Results

We collected 496 articles in total and finally we included six articles in our meta-analysis. For SSEE (Stroke, Systemic Embolic Event), the pooled relative risk showed a significantly better clinical outcome of NOAC (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.95). However, there is no significant difference in major bleeding (RR: 0.714, 95% CI:0.46 to 1.11) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.21).

Conclusion

Compared to Warfarin, NOAC is significantly more protective against the embolic event, but no significant difference in lowering risk of major bleeding, all-cause mortality or all aspects of post-TAVI (Trans-catheter aortic valve implantation).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1089-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation and with mitral or aortic valve disease

Objective

To assess stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding and other outcomes, and treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and different types of valvular heart disease (VHD), using data from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial.

Methods

There were 14 793 patients with known VHD status, categorised as having moderate or severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (n=3382), aortic regurgitation (AR) (n=842) or aortic stenosis (AS) (n=324); patients with moderate or severe mitral stenosis were excluded from the trial. Baseline characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were compared between each type and no significant VHD. Treatment effect was assessed using an adjusted model.

Results

Patients with MR or AR had similar rates of stroke/systemic embolism and bleeding compared with patients without MR or AR, respectively. Patients with AS had significantly higher event rates (presented as rate per 100 patient-years of follow-up) of stroke/systemic embolism (3.47 vs 1.36; adjusted HR (adjHR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.63), death (8.30 vs 3.53; adjHR 1.92, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.61), major bleeding (5.31 vs 2.53; adjHR 1.80, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.75) and intracranial bleeding (1.29 vs 0.51; adjHR 2.54, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.96) than patients without AS. The superiority of apixaban over warfarin on stroke/systemic embolism was similar in patients with versus without MR (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.04 vs HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; interaction P value 0.52), with versus without AR (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20 vs HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96; interaction P value 0.52), and with versus without AS (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.13 vs HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.97; interaction P value 0.19). For each of the primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes, there was no evidence of a different effect of apixaban over warfarin in patients with any VHD subcategory.

Conclusions

In anticoagulated patients with AF, AS is associated with a higher risk of stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding and death. The efficacy and safety benefits of apixaban compared with warfarin were consistent, regardless of presence of MR, AR or AS.

Clinical trial registration

ARISTOTLE clinical trial number NCT00412984.

Comparison of Anticoagulant Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation - Novel Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), oral anticoagulation is important for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE). While Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have historically been the standard of care, these medications are limited by numerous food and drug interactions with onerous requirements for frequent monitoring and dose adjustments. Over the past decade, several novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been developed to directly inhibit factor IIa/thrombin (dabigatran) or activated factor X (apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban). These medications have been shown to be at least as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in NVAF with more favorable safety profiles. However, their advantages are underscored by a lack of specific antidotes and assays quantifying their anticoagulant effects. This paper addresses the use of NOACs compared to VKAs in patients with NVAF, with a special focus on high-risk populations, including the elderly, those with renal disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and previous stroke. The current literature surrounding special clinical scenarios including the treatment of bleeding, perioperative management, and the use of NOACs in cardioversion and catheter ablation will be also discussed.

Effects of Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The original non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) trials in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) enrolled patients with native valve pathologies. The object of this study was to quantify the benefit-risk profiles of NOACs versus warfarin in AF patients with native valvular heart disease (VHD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Trials were identified by exhaustive literature search. Trial data were combined using inverse variance weighting to produce a meta-analytic summary hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin. Our final analysis included 4 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 71 526 participants, including 13 574 with VHD. Pooling results from included trials showed that NOACs versus warfarin reduced stroke or systemic embolism (HR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.92) in AF patients with VHD. However, risk reduction of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage was driven by apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran (HR for major bleeding: 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; HR for intracranial hemorrhage: 0.33 [95% CI, 0.25-0.45]) but not rivaroxaban (HR for major bleeding: 1.56 [95% CI, 1.20-2.04]; HR for intracranial hemorrhage: 1.27 [95% CI, 0.77-2.10]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with AF and native VHD, NOACs reduce stroke and systemic embolism compared with warfarin. Evidence shows that apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban also reduce bleeding in this patient subgroup, whereas major bleeding (but not intracranial hemorrhage or mortality rate) is significantly increased in VHD patients treated with rivaroxaban. NOACs are a reasonable alternative to warfarin in AF patients with VHD.

Impact of valvular heart disease on oral anticoagulant therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: results from the RAMSES study

The definition of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of valvular heart disease on stroke prevention strategies in NVAF patients. The RAMSES study was a multicenter and cross-sectional study conducted on NVAF patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02344901). The study population was divided into patients with significant valvular disease (SVD) and non-significant valvular disease (NSVD), whether they had at least one moderate valvular disease or not. Patients with a mechanical prosthetic valve and mitral stenosis were excluded. Baseline characteristics and oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapies were compared. In 5987 patients with NVAF, there were 3929 (66%) NSVD and 2058 (34%) SVD patients. The predominant valvular disease was mitral regurgitation (58.1%), followed by aortic regurgitation (24.1%) and aortic stenosis (17.8%). Patients with SVD had higher CHA2DS2VASc [3.0 (2.0; 4.0) vs. 4.0 (2.0; 5.0), p < 0.001] and HAS-BLED [2.0 (1.0; 2.0) vs. 2.0 (1.0; 2.0), p = 0.004] scores compared to patients with NSVD. Overall, 2763 (71.2%) of NSVD and 1515 (73.8%) of SVD patients were on OAC therapy (p = 0.035). When the patients with SVD were analyzed separately, the mean CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores were higher in patients with mitral regurgitation compared to patients with aortic regurgitation and aortic stenosis [4.0 (3.0; 5.0), 3.0 (2.0; 4.0), 3.0 (2.0; 4.0) p < 0.001 and 2.0 (1.0; 3.0), 1.0 (1.0; 2.0), 1.0 (0.0; 2.0) p < 0.001, respectively]. In patients with SVD, 65.7% of mitral regurgitation, 82.6% of aortic regurgitation and 88.0% of aortic stenosis patients were on OAC therapy. One out of three NVAF patients had at least one moderate valvular heart disease with the predominance of mitral regurgitation. Patients with SVD were at greater risk of stroke and bleeding compared to patients with NSVD. Although patients with mitral regurgitation should be given more aggressive anticoagulant therapy due to their higher risk of stroke, they are undertreated compared to patients with aortic valve diseases.

Direct oral anticoagulant use in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with valvular heart disease: a systematic review

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), which, according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines, excludes patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, a mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve, or mitral valve repair. However, the data regarding use of DOACs in AF patients with other types of valvular heart disease (VHD) are unclear. We aimed to summarize and evaluate the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of DOAC use in NVAF patients with other types of VHD. After an extensive literature search, a total of 1 prospective controlled trial, 4 subanalyses, and 1 abstract were identified. Efficacy of the DOAC agents in NVAF patients with VHD mirrored the overall trial results. Bleeding risk was significantly increased in VHD patients treated with rivaroxaban, but not for dabigatran or apixaban. Of the bioprosthetic valve patients enrolled in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial, no safety or efficacy concerns were identified. In conclusion, subanalyses of DOAC landmark AF trials revealed that dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban may be safely used in AF patients with certain types of VHD: aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and mitral regurgitation. More evidence is needed before routinely recommending these agents for patients with bioprosthetic valves or mild mitral stenosis. Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical valves should continue to receive warfarin, as these patients were excluded from all landmark AF trials.