Dataset Information

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use after cardiac surgery is rapidly increasing.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The prevalence of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use after cardiac surgery is unknown, particularly in patients with bioprosthetic valves. We sought to define the contemporary use and short-term safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants after cardiac surgery.

Methods

All patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement, or isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (2011-2018) were evaluated from a multicenter, regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by anticoagulant type (non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant vs vitamin K antagonist) and era (early [2011-2014] vs contemporary [2015-2018]).

Results

Of 34,188 patients, 18% (6063) were discharged on anticoagulation, of whom 23% were prescribed non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. Among those receiving anticoagulation, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use has significantly increased from 10.3% to 35.4% in contemporary practice (P < .01). This trend was observed for each operation type (coronary artery bypass grafting 0.86%/year, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: 2.15%/year, bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement: 2.72%/year, all P < .01). In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use has increased from 6.3% to 35.4% and 12.3% to 40.3% after bioprosthetic valve replacement and isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively (both P < .01). In patients receiving anticoagulation at discharge, adjusted 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.94; P = .12) and reoperation (odds ratio, 0.79; P = .34) rates were not associated with anticoagulant choice, whereas non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use was associated with an adjusted 0.9-day decrease (P < .01) in postoperative length of stay.

Conclusions

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant use after cardiac surgery has dramatically increased since 2011. This trend is consistent regardless of indication for anticoagulation including bioprosthetic valves. Short-term outcomes support their safety in the cardiac surgery setting with shorter postoperative hospital stays. Long-term studies on the efficacy of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants after cardiac surgery are still necessary.

SUBMITTER: Beller JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7729876 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) might be an attractive choice for stroke prevention in people without atrial fibrillation who may harbor a potential source of cardiac emboli, but not if certain individual NOACs carry risks of intracranial hemorrhage that are heightened relative to aspirin.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with individual NOACs vs aspirin across all indications.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 28, 2018, with the terms novel oral anticoagulants, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, direct oral anticoagulants, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, warfarin, Coumadin, vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, or ASA, and major bleeding, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage. We restricted our search to clinical trials on humans. There were no language restrictions.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of 3 months or longer that included a comparison of the outcomes of NOAC use vs use of aspirin.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently abstracted data from eligible studies. We computed a fixed-effect estimate based on the Mantel-Haenszel method.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI were used as a measure of the association of individual NOAC vs aspirin with the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. The hypothesis that intracranial hemorrhage risk would be higher with NOACs than aspirin was formulated during data collection.ResultsOur principal analysis included 5 randomized clinical trials comparing 1 or more NOACs with aspirin, with 39 398 individuals enrolled. Pooling the results from the fixed-effects model showed that a dose of 15 to 20 mg of rivaroxaban once daily was associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2 trials; OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 1.42 to 7.72]) compared with aspirin, while a 10-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily or a 5-mg dose twice daily (3 trials; OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.93 to 2.21]) and a 5-mg dose of apixaban twice daily (1 trial; OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.88]) were not.Conclusions and relevanceA 15-mg to 20-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily is associated with substantially increased risks of intracranial hemorrhage, while smaller daily doses of rivaroxaban and apixaban were not, implying that risk increase is dose dependent. It may be worthwhile to conduct randomized clinical trials comparing specific NOACs in specific doses (eg, apixaban, 5 mg twice daily) and aspirin in patients without atrial fibrillation, but with potential sources of cardiac emboli that could cause stroke.

Project description:Relative bleeding risks of different antithrombotic agents in heart failure (HF) patients is an important consideration in treatment decision making, making detailed comparative analysis desirable. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis to investigate the major bleeding risk for individual novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. aspirin among patients with HF. We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov from 1966 to November 2019 to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. Studies comparing individual NOACs vs. aspirin were analysed using direct study-level meta-analysis. Studies comparing aspirin to warfarin and NOACs to warfarin were then additionally added using network (direct and indirect) study-level meta-analysis. Primary endpoint was major bleeding. Final analysis included nine trials with 34 367 participants, including one direct comparison trial (apixaban vs. aspirin) and eight indirect comparison trials against the shared warfarin comparator (four aspirin trials and one trial each of apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban). For apixaban, network meta-analysis combing direct and indirect comparison showed that major bleeding risk might not be different between apixaban and aspirin (odds ratio, 1.18 [95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 3.65]) in HF patients. In contrast, indirect-comparison meta-analysis showed dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban compared with aspirin might be associated with a higher risk of major bleeding in HF patients. In network meta-analysis, apixaban might be associated with a comparable risk of major bleeding compared with aspirin in patients with HF, while other NOACs might be associated with a higher risk. However, such results were not strongly convincing because of lack of direct comparison in an original trial and small sample size of trials and participants. A clinical trial directly comparing apixaban vs. aspirin in patients with HF and sinus rhythm may be worth undertaking.