Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Cao Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9248967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveLeft ventricular thrombus (LVT) formation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or cardiomyopathies is not uncommon. The optimal oral anticoagulation therapy for resolving LVT has been under intense debate. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) remain the anticoagulant of choice for this condition, according to practice guidelines. Evidence supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the management of LVT continues to grow. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases in July 2023. The efficacy outcomes of this study were thrombus resolution, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, stroke/systemic embolism, all-cause mortality, and adverse cardiovascular events. The safety outcomes were any bleeding, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. A total of twenty-seven eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data were analyzed utilizing Stata software version 15.1.ResultsThere was no significant difference between DOACs and VKAs with regard to LVT resolution (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.95-1.05, P = 0.99). In the overall analysis, DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96, P = 0.021), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.86, P = 0.001), any bleeding (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92, P = 0.006) and major bleeding (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.85, P = 0.001) when compared to VKAs. Meanwhile, in the sub-analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the aforementioned outcomes no longer differed significantly between the DOACs and VKAs groups. The incidences of systemic embolism (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.22, P = 0.32), stroke/systemic embolism (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00, P = 0.056), intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.23-1.54, P = 0.28), and adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.63-1.56, P = 0.92) were comparable between the DOACs and VKAs groups. A subgroup analysis showed that patients treated with rivaroxaban had a significantly lower risk of stroke (RR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.72, P = 0.011) than those in the VKAs group.ConclusionWith non-inferior efficacy and superior safety, DOACs are promising therapeutic alternatives to VKAs in the treatment of LVT. Further robust investigations are warranted to confirm our findings.

Project description:Background: Bioprosthetic heart valve has limited durability and lower long-term performance especially in rheumatic heart disease (RHD) patients that are often subject to multiple redo operations. Minimally invasive procedures, such as transcatheter valve-in-valve (ViV) implantation, may offer an attractive alternative, although data is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic patients undergoing ViV procedures for severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Methods: Single center, prospective study, including consecutive patients undergoing transcatheter ViV implantation in aortic, mitral and tricuspid position, from May 2015 to September 2020. RHD was defined according to clinical history, previous echocardiographic and surgical findings. Results: Among 106 patients included, 69 had rheumatic etiology and 37 were non-rheumatic. Rheumatic patients had higher incidence of female sex (73.9 vs. 43.2%, respectively; p = 0.004), atrial fibrillation (82.6 vs. 45.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), and 2 or more prior surgeries (68.1 vs. 32.4%, respectively; p = 0.001). Although, device success was similar between groups (75.4 vs. 89.2% in rheumatic vs. non-rheumatic, respectively; p = 0.148), there was a trend toward higher 30-day mortality rates in the rheumatic patients (21.7 vs. 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.057). Still, at median follow-up of 20.7 [5.1-30.4] months, cumulative mortality was similar between both groups (p = 0.779). Conclusion: Transcatheter ViV implantation is an acceptable alternative to redo operations in the treatment of patients with RHD and severe bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. Despite similar device success rates, rheumatic patients present higher 30-day mortality rates with good mid-term clinical outcomes. Future studies with a larger number of patients and follow-up are still warranted, to firmly conclude on the role transcatheter ViV procedures in the RHD population.

Project description:Background: The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is recommended as the preferred treatment drug in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with cancer and AF are still controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness and safety of DOACs vs. VKAs in AF patients with cancer. Methods: A search of the Pubmed and EMBASE databases until August 2021 was performed. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model with an inverse variance method. Results: Thirteen studies were deemed to meet the criteria. For the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with VKAs use was significantly associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54-0.80) and venous thromboembolism (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.26-0.61), but not ischemic stroke (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11), myocardial infarction (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.56-1.11), cardiovascular death (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.53-1.09), and all-cause death (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.43-1.56). For the safety outcomes, compared with VKAs use, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of intracranial bleeding (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.50-0.71) and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80-0.95). There were no significant differences in major bleeding (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.04), major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.01), and any bleeding (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.76-1.03). Conclusion: Compared with VKAs, DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in stroke or systemic embolism, venous thromboembolism, intracranial bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding, but comparable risks of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, major bleeding, major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, and any bleeding in patients with AF and cancer.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical left atrial appendage occlusion (SLAAO) may be associated with a lower risk of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of SLAAO in patients undergoing mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) is lacking. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between SLAAO and the cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing MHVR.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data for 497 patients with atrial fibrillation; 27.6% of the patients underwent SLAAO, and the remainder of the patients did not (No-SLAAO group). The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. Cumulative event-free survival rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and we performed multivariate Cox analyses to evaluate the association between SLAAO and outcomes. We used one-to-one propensity score matching to balance patients' baseline characteristics, and analyzed 120 matching pairs.ResultsFive patients died within 30 days postoperatively, and there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding in-hospital complications (all P > 0.05). After a median follow-up of 14 months, 14 primary events occurred. Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference in the cumulative incidence of freedom from the primary outcome (log-rank P = 0.830), hemorrhagic events (log-rank P = 0.870), and the secondary outcome (log-rank P = 0.730), between the two groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed no association between SLAAO and any outcome (all P > 0.05). After propensity score matching, cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time, and the postoperative length of stay were significantly longer in the SLAAO group (all P < 0.05); results were similar to the unadjusted analyses.ConclusionsConcomitant SLAAO and MHVR was associated with longer length of stay, and cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time, but was not associated with additional protective effects against thromboembolic events and mortality during the 14-month follow-up.