Mechanical valves

Optimizing Anticoagulation in Valvular Heart Disease: Navigating NOACs and VKAs

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have demonstrated similar effectiveness and safety profiles to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Given their favorable pharmacological profile, including the rapid onset and offset of action, fixed dosing, and predictable pharmacokinetics with a consistent dose-response relationship, reducing the need for frequent blood tests, researchers have investigated the potential of NOACs in patients with AF and valvular heart disease (VHD).

METHODS

Clinical trials, excluding patients with mechanical prosthetic valves or moderate/severe mitral stenosis, have shown the benefits of NOACs over VKAs in this population. However, there is a need for further research to determine if these findings apply to mechanical valve prostheses and NOACs.

RESULTS

Several ongoing randomized controlled trials are underway to provide more definitive evidence regarding NOAC treatment in moderate to severe rheumatic mitral stenosis. Importantly, recent trials that included patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves (also transcatheter heart valves) have provided evidence supporting the safety of NOACs in this specific patient population. Ongoing research aims to clearly define the specific scenarios where NOACs can be safely and effectively prescribed for various types of VHD, including moderate/severe mitral stenosis and mechanical valves.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this review is to accurately identify the specific situations in which NOACs can be prescribed in patients with VHD, with a focus centered on each type of valvulopathy.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter: Rationale and design of the RIVER trial

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. DESIGN: RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. SUMMARY: RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

Optimal Intensity of Warfarin Therapy in Patients With Mechanical Aortic Valves

OBJECTIVE:

To review the current guidelines and published literature in order to identify the evidence-based international normalized ratio (INR) goal in patients with a mechanical aortic valve.

DATA SOURCES:

Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar database searches for relevant articles from 1946 through March 2017 were executed using the key words "mechanical aortic valve" and "antithrombotic therapy or anticoagulation therapy or warfarin."

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All English-language observational and interventional studies assessing INR goals in patients with a mechanical aortic valve were evaluated.

RESULTS:

After low thrombogenic valves became standard in the practice, the INR goal decreased to 2 to 3 in low-risk recipients with most of bileaflet mechanical aortic valves. There is a paucity of data to justify the INR goal of 2 to 3 in high-risk patients. Until further higher evidence is available, it is reasonable to target an INR range of 2.5 to 3.5 in patients with risk factors for thromboembolism with low thrombogenic valves, except for On-X valve. The INR goal in high-risk On-X aortic valve recipients can be managed at 1.5 to 2.5 with low-dose aspirin 3 months after valve implantation.

CONCLUSION:

The INR goals of 2 to 3 for low risk and 2.5 to 3.5 for high risk should be considered for bileaflet mechanical aortic valve recipients. Additionally, a lower INR goal of 2 to 3 for the first 3 months after valve replacement followed by an INR goal of 1.5 to 2.5 in both low- and high-risk aortic On-X valve recipients may be considered.

Low-Intensity Oral Anticoagulant Plus Low-Dose Aspirin During the First Six Months Versus Standard-Intensity Oral Anticoagulant Therapy After Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement: A Pilot Study of Low-Intensity Warfarin and Aspirin in Cardiac Prostheses (LIWACAP)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-intensity warfarin treatment plus aspirin during the first 6 months after surgery in patients undergoing heart valve substitution with mechanical prostheses. Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are able to reduce but not eliminate thrombosis and systemic embolism in patients with mechanical heart valves. The intensity of treatment and additional use of aspirin in these patients is still controversial. Consecutive patients undergoing aortic or mitral valve replacement (or a combination of the two) with mechanical prostheses were invited to participate in the study. After stratifying for site of prosthesis, patients were randomized to receive low intensity VKA treatment (target INR 2.5) plus aspirin (100 mg/day) for the first six months (Group A) or standard-intensity (INR target 3.7) VKA treatment (Group B). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Principal outcome events were systemic embolism, major bleeding, and vascular death. A total of 94 patients in Group A and 104 in Group B were randomized and followed up for 144 and 163 patient years, respectively. There were 5 (5%) events in Group A (4 major bleeding events and 1 vascular death) and 4 (4%) in group B (2 major bleeding events and 2 ischemic stroke). All the events except 1 occurred within the first 6 months after surgery. Cumulative incidence of primary outcome events was 5.8% (95% CI 0.9 to 10.7) in Group A and 4.3% (95% CI 0,2 to 8.4) in Group B (p=0.6). Low-intensity treatment plus aspirin during the first six months after surgery appears to be as effective and safe as moderate-high-intensity anticoagulation.

Antithrombotic Therapy in Valvular Heart Disease—Native and Prosthetic

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy in native and prosthetic valvular heart disease is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease and atrial fibrillation (AF), or a history of previous systemic embolism, we recommend long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy (target international normalized ratio [INR], 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease with AF or a history of systemic embolism who suffer systemic embolism while receiving OACs at a therapeutic INR, we recommend adding aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C). For those patients unable to take aspirin, we recommend adding dipyridamole, 400 mg/d, or clopidogrel (Grade 1C). In people with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) without history of systemic embolism, unexplained transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), or AF, we recommended against any antithrombotic therapy (Grade 1C). In patients with MVP and documented but unexplained TIAs, we recommend long-term aspirin therapy, 50 to 162 mg/d (Grade 1A). For all patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1C+). For patients with a St. Jude Medical (St. Paul, MN) bileaflet valve in the aortic position, we recommend a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1A]. For patients with tilting disk valves and bileaflet mechanical valves in the mitral position, we recommend a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with caged ball or caged disk valves, we suggest a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) in combination with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 2A). For patients with bioprosthetic valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists with a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) for the first 3 months after valve insertion in the mitral position (Grade 1C+) and in the aortic position (Grade 2C). For patients with bioprosthetic valves who are in sinus rhythm and do not have AF, we recommend long-term (> 3 months) therapy with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C+).

Update on indications for surgery in aortic insufficiency

Aortic insufficiency is a valvular disease characterized by left ventricular volume overload. This article presents a logical approach for following up patients with aortic insufficiency and helps to determine the optimal timing for valve replacement. The various valve replacement techniques are discussed, and the specific benefits or risks associated with these procedures are described.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with mechanical and biological prosthetic heart valves

1. Permanent therapy with oral anticoagulants offers the most consistent protection in patients with mechanical heart valves. 2. Antiplatelet agents alone do not consistently protect patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, including patients in sinus rhythm with St. Jude Medical valves in the aortic position. 3. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.0 to 3.0 appear satisfactory for patients with St. Jude Medical bileaflet and Medtronic-Hall tilting disk mechanical valves in the aortic position, provided they are in sinus rhythm and the left atrium is not enlarged. Presumably, this is also true for the CarboMedics bileaflet valve, based on the observation of no clinically important difference in the rate of systemic embolism with this valve and the St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve. 4. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.5 to 3.5 are satisfactory for tilting disk valves and bileaflet prosthetic valves in the mitral position. 5. Experience in patients with caged ball valves who had prothrombin time ratios reported in terms of the INR is sparse, because few such valves have been inserted in recent years. The number of surviving patients with caged ball valves continues to decrease. It has been suggested that the most advantageous level of the INR in patients with caged ball or caged disk valves should be as high as 4.0 to 4.9. However, others have shown a high rate of major hemorrhage with an INR that is even somewhat lower, 3.0-4.5. The problem is self-limited, however, because few such valves are being inserted. 6. In patients with mechanical heart valves, aspirin, in addition to oral anticoagulants, has been shown to diminish the frequency of thromboemboli. The risk of bleeding is somewhat increased if the INR is 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.5 to 3.5. However, if the INR is 3.0 to 4.5, the risk of bleeding becomes excessive with aspirin. There are no investigations in which aspirin 80 mg/d in combination with oral anticoagulants was evaluated. 7. Data are insufficient to recommend dipyridamole over low doses of aspirin in combination with warfarin. Whether dipyridamole plus aspirin is more effective than aspirin alone when used with warfarin is undetermined. 8. Patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position as well as patients with bioprosthetic valves in the aortic position may be at risk for thromboemboli during the first 3 months after operation. 9. Among patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position, oral anticoagulants at an INR of 2.0 to 2.3 were as effective as an INR of 2.5 to 4.0 and were associated with fewer bleeding complications during the first 3 months after operation.10. Aspirin may reduce the long-term frequency of thromboembolism in patients with bioprosthetic valves.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with mechanical and biological prosthetic heart valves

Permanent therapy with oral anticoagulants offers the most consistent protection in patients with mechanical heart valves. Antiplatelet agents alone do not consistently protect patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, including patients in sinus rhythm with St. Jude valves in the aortic position. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.0 to 3.0 appear satisfactory for patients with bileaflet mechanical valves in the aortic position, provided they are in sinus rhythm and the left atrium is not enlarged. Oral anticoagulant levels that prolong the INR to 2.5 to 3.2 are satisfactory for patients with bileaflet mechanical aortic valves and atrial fibrillation. Oral anticoagulant levels that prolong the INR to 2.5 to 3.5 are satisfactory for tilting disk valves and bileaflet prosthetic valves in the mitral position. Experience is sparse in patients with caged ball valves who had prothrombin time ratios reported in terms of INR. It has been suggested that the most advantageous INR level in patients with caged ball or caged disk valves should be as high as 4.0 to 4.9. However, others have shown a high rate of major hemorrhage with an INR that is even somewhat lower (3.0 to 4.5). The problem is self-limited, however, because few such valves are being inserted. Aspirin, in addition to oral anticoagulants, in patients with mechanical heart valves has been shown to diminish the frequency of thromboemboli. The risk of bleeding may not be increased if the INR is low. A low rate of both thromboemboli and bleeding has been shown with an INR of 2.5 to 3.5 in combination with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg/d. There are no investigations in which an aspirin dose of 81 mg/d in combination with oral anticoagulants was evaluated. Dipyripdamole may be effective in reducing the rate of thromboemboli without increasing the rate of bleeding, but data are insufficient to recommend dipyridamole over low doses of aspirin. Patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position, as well as patients with bioprosthetic valves in the aortic position, may be at risk for thromboemboli during the first 3 months after surgery. Among patients during the first 3 months after surgery with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position, oral anticoagulants administered at an INR of 2.0 to 2.3 were as effective as at an INR of 2.5 to 4.5: additionally, fewer bleeding complications were seen.

Up to eight years' follow-up of 997 patients receiving the CarboMedics prosthetic heart valve

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate our clinical experience with the CarboMedics Heart Valve Prosthesis.

METHODS

Nine hundred ninety-seven consecutive patients underwent mechanical valve implantation (aortic, 771; mitral, 169; double, 52; tricuspid, 5) with this prosthesis from September 1987 through December 1993. The mean age was 62.3+/-13.7 years (range, 0.4 to 84 years); 56.6% (564 patients) were men. Four hundred seventy patients (47.1%) underwent additional surgical procedures. Mean follow-up was 4.1+/-2.2 years (range, 0 to 8.3 years) with a total of 4,040 patient-years.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 5.0% (50/997; aortic, 4.4%; mitral, 6.4%; double, 9.6%). Late mortality was 14.8% (140/947). Survival at 7 years was 75.9%+/-1.8% (aortic, 78.4%+/-2%; mitral, 70.7%+/-4.5%; double, 60.8%+/-7.4%). When matched for sex and age and compared with the normal Norwegian population, our patients had an increased standard mortality ratio in both men (1.9+/-0.4) and women (2.9+/-0.6). The linearized rate of major thromboembolism was 0.9% per patient-year, valve thrombosis 0.2% per patient-year, major bleeding event 0.6% per patient-year, paravalvular leak needing reoperation 0.5% per patient-year, prosthetic valve endocarditis 0.1% per patient-year, and of all reoperations 0.6% per patient-year.

CONCLUSIONS

The CarboMedics Heart Valve Prosthesis has incidences of morbid events comparable with or better than reported for other mechanical valves.