TAVR Patients Requiring Anticoagulation: Direct Oral Anticoagulant or Vitamin K Antagonist?

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Efficacy and outcomes of antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recent guidelines suggest that antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the standard of care in the absence of long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) indications in patients post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The superiority of one method over the other remains controversial.

Materials and methods

Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity.

Results

Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P=0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P=0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P=0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P=0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P=0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P=0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P=0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P=0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P=0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P=0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P=0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002].

Conclusions

Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups.

Late bleeding events in TAVI patients receiving vitamin K antagonists or direct oral anticoagulants

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The optimal chronic antithrombotic regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain. Our aim was to compare the incidence of late bleeding events between patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and those on vitamin-K antagonists (VKA).

METHODS

This single-center observational study included TAVI patients requiring oral anticoagulation at discharge between 2015 and 2021. The primary endpoint was any clinically significant bleeding event. Secondary endpoints were stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 702 TAVI procedures were performed, with 297 patients requiring oral anticoagulation at discharge. Among them, 206 (69.4%) received VKA and 91 (30.6%) received DOAC. Baseline clinical, procedural and in-hospital characteristics did not significantly differ between groups, except for better renal function among DOAC patients. The median length of follow-up was 2.8 years. The risk of bleeding events was higher in patients receiving DOACs than in those receiving VKA (HR, 2.27; 95%CI, 1.21-4.26; incidence of 9.7 and 4.2 events per 100 patient-years of follow-up for DOAC and VKA patients, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of stroke (HR, 1.28; 95%CI, 0.4-4.3), heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.46-1.86), or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95%CI, 0.68-1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients undergoing TAVI and receiving anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation, the use of DOAC was associated with a higher risk of late bleeding events than VKA.

Clinical effects of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Insights from the nationwide FRANCE-TAVI registry

BACKGROUND

The influence of permanent pacemaker implantation upon outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains controversial.

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI on short- and long-term mortality, and on the risk of hospitalization for heart failure.

METHODS

Data from the large FRANCE-TAVI registry, linked to the French national health single-payer claims database, were analysed to compare 30-day and long-term mortality rates and hospitalization for heart failure rates among patients with versus without permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI. Multivariable regressions were performed to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 36,549 patients (mean age 82.6years; 51.6% female) who underwent TAVI from 2013 to 2019 were included in the present analysis. Among them, 6999 (19.1%) received permanent pacemaker implantation during the index hospitalization, whereas 232 (0.6%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation between hospital discharge and 30days after TAVI, at a median of 11 (interquartile range: 7-18) days. In-hospital permanent pacemaker implantation was not associated with an increased risk of death between discharge and 30days (adjusted odds ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.29). At 5years, the incidence of all-cause death was higher among patients with versus without permanent pacemaker implantation within 30days of the procedure (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.19). Permanent pacemaker implantation within 30days of TAVI was also associated with a higher 5-year rate of hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted subhazard ratio: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVI is associated with an increased risk of long-term hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality. Further research to mitigate the risk of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation is needed as TAVI indications expand to lower-risk patients.

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).

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Past, present, and future

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a ground-breaking, minimally invasive alternative to traditional open-heart surgery, primarily designed for elderly patients initially considered unsuitable for surgical intervention due to severe aortic stenosis. As a result of successful large-scale trials, TAVR is now being routinely applied to a broader spectrum of patients. In deciding between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement, clinicians evaluate various factors, including patient suitability and anatomy through preprocedural imaging, which guides prosthetic valve sizing and access site selection. Patient surgical risk is a pivotal consideration, with a multidisciplinary team making the ultimate decision in the patient's best interest. Periprocedural imaging aids real-time visualization but is influenced by anaesthesia choices. A comprehensive postprocedural assessment is critical due to potential TAVR-related complications. Numerous trials have demonstrated that TAVR matches or surpasses surgery for patients with diverse surgical risk profiles, ranging from extreme to low risk. However, long-term follow-up data, particularly in low-risk cases, remains limited, and the applicability of published results to younger patients is uncertain. This review delves into key TAVR studies, pinpointing areas for potential improvement while delving into the future of this innovative procedure. Furthermore, it explores the expanding role of TAVR technology in addressing other heart valve replacement procedures.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonist after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVE

After transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the optimal regimen of anticoagulant therapy in patients with an additional indication for oral anticoagulation remains a matter of debate. This study investigates the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients after TAVI in a real-world population.

METHODS

The German Aortic Valve RegistrY (GARY) is a prospective, multicentre registry enrolling patients undergoing invasive treatment for aortic valve disease. From January 2011 to December 2019, 1 41 790 patients from 92 hospitals in Germany were enrolled. Anticoagulatory treatment regimens were assessed at hospital discharge for patients after TAVI procedures. All-cause mortality and the combined endpoint 'cardiac and cerebrovascular events' containing myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, aortic prosthesis reintervention and all-cause mortality in the first year after TAVI were examined by treatment regimen.

RESULTS

Of 45 598 patients (mean age 80.7±5.7 years, 49.3% males) undergoing TAVI, 16 974 patients (37.2%) received an anticoagulant regimen that included VKA or DOAC. Hereof, the majority of patients were prescribed VKA (n=11 333, 66.8%) compared with DOAC (n=5641, 33.2%) with an increase of DOAC use from 9.4% in 2011 to 69.9% in 2019. During the 1-year follow-up, the absolute event rates per 100 person-years for all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint cardiac and cerebrovascular events were 1.9 and 1.3 for VKA-treated and 1.7 and 1.2 for DOAC-treated patients, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, all-cause mortality (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, p=0.114) and cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, p=0.071) did not differ significantly between VKA and DOAC groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports evidence of the efficacy of DOAC use after TAVI in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation.

Antithrombotic therapy with Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve replacement is a necessary management strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The use of transaortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased significantly over the last decade and now exceeds traditional surgical aortic valve replacement. Since the valve systems used in TAVR consist of bioprosthetic valve tissue encased in a metal stent frame, antithrombotic therapy recommendations cannot be extrapolated from prior data with differently constructed surgical bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. Data on the use of antithrombotic therapy with TAVR are a rapidly developing area of medicine. Choice of agents depends on several patient factors. Patients undergoing TAVR also have a relatively high incidence of subclinical valve thrombosis. The clinical impact of this phenomenon and the implications for antithrombotic therapy continue to evolve. It is critical for clinicians who treat patients undergoing TAVR to have a firm understanding of practice guidelines, the evolving evidence, and its implications for the use of antithrombotic therapy in these patients.

Antithrombotic therapy following transcatheter aortic valve intervention

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being performed to treat symptomatic patients with aortic stenosis and annual procedure volume has overtaken surgical aortic valve replacement in the United States. However, current international guidelines were written prior to the publication of several important recent studies. Furthermore, European and American guidelines differ in their recommendations of antithrombotic therapy following TAVR. Consequently, there is a need to examine the literature to provide clinicians guidance on the optimum antithrombotic strategy, particularly as different patient populations exist. In this review, we examine the data for antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy post-TAVR.

DOAC versus VKA in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, outcomes in AF patients with bioprosthetic valves are unclear, as this population has been underrepresented in clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of DOACs in this population based on the existing published literature.

METHODS

A systematic search and review were conducted to identify randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies published from 2017 to January 2022 that compared DOACs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in AF patients with bioprosthetic valves. Hazard ratios (HR) were collected to compare the 2 treatments in terms of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding. A meta-analysis combining the results was performed.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies (30 283 patients). DOACs and VKAs were compared based on HRs at the 95% confidence interval. DOAC therapy was associated with a significant 9% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.91; 95%CI, 0.85-0.97; P=.0068; I2=8%), with no significant differences in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (HR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.67-1.14; P=.29; I2=45%) or major bleeding (HR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.67-1.00; P=.054; I2=48.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

DOAC therapy in AF patients with bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality, with no reduction in the efficacy of stroke/systemic embolism prevention or increase in major bleeding risk.

Post-TAVR patients with atrial fibrillation: are NOACs better than VKAs?-A meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with traditional anticoagulants vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) post transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods

Studies comparing the usage of NOACs and VKAs in AF patients with oral anticoagulant indication post-TAVR were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases from their building-up to Jan. 2023. The literature was screened in line of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR),95% confidence interval (CI) and number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated for four main indexes that composite endpoints composed mainly of any clinically relevant risk events, stroke, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3 and Stata 16.0 software.

Results

In the aggregate of thirteen studies, contained 30388 post-TAVR patients with AF, were included in this meta-analysis. Our results indicated that there was no significant difference in stroke between the NOACs group and the VKAs group, and the NOACs group had a numerically but non-significantly higher number of composite endpoint events compared with the other group. Nevertheless, the incidence of major bleeding [11.29% vs. 13.89%, RR 0.82, 95%CI (0.77,0.88), P < 0.00001, I² = 69%, NNT = 38] and all-cause mortality [14.18% vs. 17.61%, RR 0.83, 95%CI (0.79,0.88), p < 0.00001, I² = 82%, NNT = 29] were significantly lower in the NOACs group than another group.

Conclusion

Taken together, our data indicated that the usage of NOACs reduced the incidence of major bleeding and all-cause mortality compared to VKAs in post-TAVR patients with AF.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past two decades, the rapid evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the elderly. The prevalence of comorbidities in elderly AS patients presents a considerable challenge to the effectiveness and prognosis of patients after TAVR. In this article, we aim to summarize some of the clinical aspects of the current use of TAVR in elderly patients and attempt to highlight the challenges and issues that need further consideration.

Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis After Balloon versus Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) has been recognized as one of the complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and may promote structural valve degeneration and increase the risk of cerebrovascular events. The 2 main types of available transcatheter heart valves (THVs), the balloon-expandable (BE) and the self-expanding (SE), are interchangeably used in clinical practice despite substantial design differences. There is unclear evidence on whether these 2 different THV models are achieving similar or different rates of subclinical leaflet thrombosis/HALT. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that reported the incidence of HALT between SE THVs and BE THVs. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval and pooled risk ratio with a random-effects model. A total of 126 records were identified, of which 22 studies comprising 14,401 patients were included in our final analysis. Among 5,951 patients receiving SE THVs, 194 (3.2%) developed HALT, compared with 8,450 patients receiving BE THVs, of whom 484 (5.7%) developed HALT. There was a statistically significant decrease in the risk of developing HALT in patients receiving SE THVs compared with those receiving BE THVs (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.95, I² 32%, p = 0.02). In conclusion, could potentially reduce the risk of HALT/subclinical leaflet thrombosis.

The temptation of anticoagulant therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

The choice of the best antithrombotic strategy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) must be based on the careful balance between the ischaemic risk and the bleeding risk and on the evaluation of some concomitant conditions, such as atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease which may lead to the choice of anticoagulant treatment or antiplatelet therapy. Another element to consider is the possibility, albeit remote in post-TAVI patients, of thrombosis of the valve leaflets, an event whose clinical impact has yet to be fully clarified and which however appears to present a lower incidence in patients treated with anticoagulants. Recent evidence has shown that in patients who do not require anticoagulant therapy, single therapy with aspirin represents the best treatment compared to dual antiplatelet or to the addition of anticoagulant which in post-TAVI patients should be reserved only for those with a clear indication such as atrial fibrillation. It is still much debated whether in this case the choice should fall on vitamin K antagonists or on the new direct-acting anticoagulants, as the comparison studies have produced inconclusive results.

Bleeding Events After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained over time a major reduction in procedural complications. Despite this, clinically relevant bleeding still occurs in a non-negligible proportion of patients and adversely affects prognosis. Patients with severe aortic stenosis are at heightened risk for spontaneous bleeding due to advanced age and a high comorbidity burden. Also, procedural factors and antithrombotic management contribute to define individual bleeding susceptibility. Bleeding prevention represents an emerging area for improving patient care. Because of the tight hemorrhagic/ischemic balance, a tailored approach based on individual bleeding-risk profile, such as a less invasive antithrombotic regimen or appropriate diagnostic preprocedural evaluation, should be pursued to avoid bleeding events. This review aims to provide an in-depth overview of bleeding events in the TAVR field, including definitions, timing and the extent of risk, and clinical impact, as well as updates on antithrombotic management and its potential influence on bleeding complications.

The search for optimal antithrombotic therapy in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: facts and uncertainties

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive procedure, which is used frequently in patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis. Most patients undergoing TAVI are over 80 years of age with a high bleeding as well as thrombotic risk. Despite the increasing safety of the procedure, thromboembolic events [stroke, (subclinical) valve thrombosis] remain prevalent. As a consequence, antithrombotic prophylaxis is routinely used and only recently new data on the efficacy and safety of antithrombotic drugs has become available. On the other hand, these antithrombotic drugs increase bleeding in a population with unique aortic stenosis-related bleeding characteristics (such as acquired von Willebrand factor defect and angiodysplasia). In this review, we discuss the impact of thromboembolic and bleeding events, the current optimal antithrombotic therapy based on registries and recent randomized controlled trials, as well as try to give a practical guide how to treat these high-risk patients. Finally, we discuss knowledge gaps and future research needed to fill these gaps.

Bayesian Meta-analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Vitamin K Antagonists With or Without Concomitant Antiplatelet After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Anticoagulation Indication

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) commonly have co-morbidities requiring anticoagulation. However, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen is not well-established. This meta-analysis investigates safety and efficacy outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA), with or without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for appropriate studies. Subgroup analyses were performed for anticoagulant monotherapy and combined therapy with antiplatelet agents. Eleven studies (6359 patients) were included. Overall, there were no differences between DOACs and VKA for all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR]: .69; Credible Interval [CrI]: .40–1.06), cardiovascular-related mortality (OR: .76; Crl: .13–3.47), bleeding (OR: .95; CrI: .75–1.17), stroke (OR: 1.04; CrI: .65–1.63), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.51; CrI: .55–3.84), and valve thrombosis (OR: .29; CrI: .01–3.54). For DOACs vs VKA monotherapy subgroup, there were no differences in outcomes. For the combined therapy subgroup, there was decreased odds of all-cause mortality in the DOACs group compared with the VKA group (OR: .13; CrI: .02–.65), but no differences for bleeding and stroke. DOACs and VKA have similar safety and efficacy profiles for post-TAVI patients with anticoagulation indication. However, if concomitant antiplatelet therapy is required, DOACs were more favorable than VKA for all-cause mortality.

Perioperative Management of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Cardiac Surgery: Practice Recommendations Based on Current Evidence

An increasing number of patients on systemic oral anticoagulants present for cardiac surgery, and cardiac anesthesiologists should be well-informed on their management in the perioperative period. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including factor Xa inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors, are an attractive alternative to warfarin due to fewer dietary and drug interactions, less frequent monitoring requirements, and an improved patient adherence. Since the approval of DOACs by the Food and Drug Administration in 2010, the number of patients on these medications only has increased. The guidelines vary on the periprocedural management of DOACs for cardiac surgery. This review evaluated the current evidence for medication cessation before surgery, based on timing as well as plasma drug concentration. The practice recommendations of various monitoring tests and new evolving point-of-care testing are examined herein. The different reversal agents were discussed by the authors for both elective and urgent procedures. The cardiac anesthesiologist needs to be intimately familiar with the management and current best practices of DOACs for safe and appropriate patient care.

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.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valve Replacement or Repair

Background

We sought to examine outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with valve repair/replacement.

Methods and Results

Two atrial fibrillation cohorts from Medicare were identified from 2015 to 2019. They comprised patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter mitral valve repair (MV repair cohort) and surgical aortic or mitral bioprosthetic or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (bioprosthetic cohort). Each cohort was divided into warfarin and DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) groups. Study outcomes included mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Inverse probability weighting was used for adjustment between the 2 groups in each cohort. The MV repair cohort included 1178 patients. After a median of 468 days, DOACs were associated with lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55–0.82], P<0.001), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52–1.00], P=0.05) and bleeding (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63–0.99], P=0.04) compared with warfarin. The bioprosthetic cohort included 8089 patients. After a median follow‐up of 413 days, DOACs were associated with similar risk of mortality (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86–1.01], P=0.08), higher risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.13–1.43], P<0.001), and lower risk of bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80–0.93], P<0.001) compared with warfarin.

Conclusions

In patients with atrial fibrillation, DOACs are associated with similar mortality, lower bleeding, but higher stroke with bioprosthetic valve replacement and lower risk of all 3 outcomes with MV repair compared with warfarin.

Direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists after TAVR: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) also require oral anticoagulation (OAC) for atrial fibrillation (AF) or deep vein thromboembolism. However, the optimal type of OAC strategy (direct oral anticoagulants, DOACs, or vitamin K antagonists, VKA) is still unclear in this setting.

METHOD

We performed systematic literature research and meta-analysis in PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases for studies reporting either all-cause mortality, major/life-threatening bleeding or stroke events.

RESULTS

Ten observational studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a total of 29,485 patients were eligible for inclusion. Compared to VKA, DOACs use after TAVR was associated with a modest but significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81-0.99, p-value 0.04) with results mainly driven by observational studies. Cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.81-1.30; p-value 0.84), total stroke events (RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.76-1.23, p-value 0.79), major/life-threatening bleeding (RR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72-1.21, p-value 0.61) and minor bleeding (RR 0.96; 95% CI: 0.74-1.23; p-value 0.72) were similar between VKA and DOACs.

CONCLUSION

Considering the totality of available evidence, in patients underwent TAVR with a concomitant indication for OAC, DOACs-based strategy is an effective and safe anticoagulation strategy compared to VKA.

DOACs in Mechanical and Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: A Narrative Review of Emerging Data and Future Directions

In the recent years, there has been significant transformation in the management of valvular heart disease (VHD), as a result of new minimally invasive technologies, such as the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Conventionally, mechanical heart valves require anticoagulation with warfarin to prevent thrombogenic events. Lately, there has been an uptrend in the usage of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in both mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves. In clinical practice, there has shown to be notable heterogeneity in the antithrombotic regimen for patients. Recommendations from clinical guidelines and emerging data on DOAC use in these settings will be critically reviewed here. Future large, randomized-controlled trials are warranted to delineate the role of DOACs in patients receiving a bioprosthetic valve/TAVI or mechanical heart valve, with and without a baseline indication for anticoagulation or antiplatelets. Until clinical trial data from well-designed studies are available, providers must remain vigilant about DOAC use in patients with VHD, especially in patients with a bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valve.

Antithrombotic Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Due to a large technical improvement in the past decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded to lower-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis. While mortality rates related to TAVR are decreasing, the prognosis of patients is still impacted by ischemic and bleeding complications, and defining the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains a priority. Recent randomized control trials reported lower bleeding rates with an equivalent risk in ischemic outcomes with single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) when compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients without an underlying indication for anticoagulation. In patients requiring lifelong oral anticoagulation (OAC), the association of OAC plus antiplatelet therapy leads to a higher risk of bleeding events with no advantages on mortality or ischemic outcomes. Considering these data, guidelines have recently been updated and now recommend SAPT and OAC alone for TAVR patients without and with a long-term indication for anticoagulation. Whether a direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist provides better outcomes in patients in need of anticoagulation remains uncertain, as recent trials showed a similar impact on ischemic and bleeding outcomes with apixaban but higher gastrointestinal bleeding with edoxaban. This review aims to summarize the most recently published data in the field, as well as describe unresolved issues.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with valvular heart disease

The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have transformed the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), but are only approved by regulatory authorities for stroke prophylaxis in patients with so-called “non-valvular AF.” This terminology has spawned confusion about which patients with valvular heart disease benefit from NOACs and which should be treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) instead. Patients with valvular heart disease other than mechanical prosthetic valves or severe mitral stenosis (including those with bioprosthetic valves) were included in pivotal trials demonstrating the benefit of NOACs over VKAs, and consensus guidelines recommend NOACs over VKAs in these patients. Subsequent devoted randomized controlled trials in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves, including transcatheter valves, have confirmed the safety of NOACs in this population. In patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, observational studies indicate that NOACs may be safe and effective, but randomized controlled trials are ongoing. By contrast, a randomized controlled trial showed that dabigatran is harmful in patients with mechanical prosthetic mitral valves; however, these data may not extrapolate to patients with mechanical valve prostheses in other locations or to other NOACs, and randomized controlled trials are ongoing. In this review, we discuss these data in greater depth, and make recommendations for the use of NOACs in patients with valvular heart disease.

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulant After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: We aimed to compare non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with a traditional antithrombotic such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and antiplatelet agents in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until November 2021 for studies involving comparisons of any type of NOACs, including dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban, with VKA or antiplatelet agents after TAVR. A comparison of NOACs versus VKA was performed in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. In addition, we compared NOACs versus antiplatelet in patients without such indication. We calculated the hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine long-term outcomes. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint consisting of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or any related clinical adverse events. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and stroke, respectively.

Results: A total of 10 studies including 10,563 patients after TAVR were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in any of the long-term outcomes between the NOAC and VKA groups. Although there were no significant differences in the combined endpoint, major bleeding, or stroke, a significant difference was observed in the all-cause mortality (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25–2.43, p = 0.001) between the NOAC and antiplatelet groups.

Conclusion: For patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation after TAVR, NOACs seem to be associated with noninferior outcomes compared with VKA therapy. However, for patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation, NOACs appear to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause death as compared with antiplatelet treatment.

Systematic Review Registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42020155122.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a treatment option for symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis who are candidates for a bioprosthesis across the entire spectrum of risk. However, TAVR carries a risk for thrombotic and bleeding events, underscoring the importance of defining the optimal adjuvant antithrombotic regimen. Antithrombotic considerations are convoluted by the fact that many patients undergoing TAVR are generally elderly and present with multiple comorbidities, including conditions that may require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) (eg, atrial fibrillation) and antiplatelet therapy (eg, coronary artery disease). After TAVR among patients without baseline indications for OAC, recent data suggest dual-antiplatelet therapy to be associated with an increased risk for bleeding events, particularly early postprocedure, compared with single-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin. Concerns surrounding the potential for thrombotic complications have raised the hypothesis of adjunctive use of OAC for patients with no baseline indications for anticoagulation. Although effective in modulating thrombus formation at the valve level, the bleeding hazard has shown to be unacceptably high, and the net benefit of combining antiplatelet and OAC therapy is unproven. For patients with indications for the use of long-term OAC, such as those with atrial fibrillation, the adjunctive use of antiplatelet therapy increases bleeding. Whether direct oral anticoagulant agents achieve better outcomes than vitamin K antagonists remains under investigation. Overall, single-antiplatelet therapy and OAC appear to be reasonable strategies in patients without and with indications for concurrent anticoagulation. The aim of the present review is to appraise the current published research and recommendations surrounding the management of antithrombotic therapy after TAVR, with perspectives on evolving paradigms and ongoing trials.