Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists: Which one is more effective in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for anticoagulation in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a subject of debate. A meta-analysis using updated evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves to address this controversy.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up until March 2023. The search aimed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety outcomes of both direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation. The primary outcomes of interest were major bleeding and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Our study demonstrated that despite the difference was not significant, the hazard of all-cause mortality was 2.5% higher in the DOAC group (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.88, 1.19], p-value = .75). Similarly, the hazard of stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.87, 1.32], p-value = .71) and major bleeding (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = [0.89, 1.38], p-value = .36) were found to be respectively 3.2 and 10.7% higher in the DOAC group, although the difference was not significant. However, the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was found to be 28.8 lower in the DOAC treatment group (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.31], p-value = .27), which again was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that in patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve surgery and presenting with AF afterward, DOAC and VKA are similar regarding life-threatening and all-cause mortality outcomes, including major bleeding, stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage.

Non-vitamin K versus vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in surgical mitral valve repair or bioprosthetic valve replacement in the first three months after surgery

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after surgical mitral valve repair (MVR) or bioprosthetic valve replacement (BVR) in mitral position remains a controversial topic among the cardiovascular community, in particular in the early postoperative period. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs in the first three months after MVR or mitral BVR compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study with prospectively collected peri-intervention outcomes between 2020 and 2021. Records were retrieved and all participants were contacted by telephone. Patients were divided into groups according to OAC strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, mitral thrombosis, or bleeding during the first three months after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 65.5±12.2 years, 56.8% male. On discharge, 98 (66.2%) patients were on VKAs and 50 (33.8%) were on DOACs for at least three months. The primary outcome occurred in 22 (22.4%) patients in the VKA group and in three (6%) in the NOAC group (p=0.012), mainly driven by more bleeding events in the former. Independent predictors of the primary outcome were smoking (p=0.028) and OAC with VKAs at discharge, the latter predicting three times more events (p=0.046, OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.02-13.5).

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs were associated with fewer events, supporting their efficacy and safety during the first three months after surgical MVR or mitral BVR.

Comparison between non-vitamin K oral antagonist versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with and without valvular heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) poses a significant stroke risk in heart disease patients. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in AF patients with and without any valvular heart disease (VHD/N-VHD).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to March 3, 2022. Efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 85,423 subjects from 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. NOACs and VKAs showed similar effects on ischemic stroke in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72-1.30; p = 0.83) and also on systemic embolic events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.83-1.25; p = 0.86). Similar effects were seen in VHD and N-VHD subgroups. Both treatments had similar effects on myocardial infarction in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.49-1.26; p = 0.32), VHD (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p = 0.07), and N-VHD subgroups (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.30-2.21; p = 0.69). NOACs reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding in AF VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.54-0.77; p < 0.0001), VHD (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.42-0.82; p = 0.002), and N-VHD subgroups (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57-0.85; p = 0.0003). Additionally, NOACs reduced the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in AF VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.96; p = 0.02), specifically in the VHD subgroup (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.89; p = 0.004). Moreover, NOACs were associated with a decreased risk for minor and non-fatal bleeding in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.99; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

NOACs are effective and safe for ischemic stroke, systemic embolic events, myocardial infarction, intracranial bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding in AF patients with VHD/N-VHD.

A synthesis of pathways linking diet, metabolic risk and cardiovascular disease: a framework to guide further research and approaches to evidence-based practice

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common non-communicable disease occurring globally. Although previous literature has provided useful insights into the important role that diet plays in CVD prevention and treatment, understanding the causal role of diets is a difficult task considering inherent and introduced weaknesses of observational (e.g. not properly addressing confounders and mediators) and experimental research designs (e.g. not appropriate or well designed). In this narrative review, we organised current evidence linking diet, as well as conventional and emerging physiological risk factors, with CVD risk, incidence and mortality in a series of diagrams. The diagrams presented can aid causal inference studies as they provide a visual representation of the types of studies underlying the associations between potential risk markers/factors for CVD. This may facilitate the selection of variables to be considered and the creation of analytical models. Evidence depicted in the diagrams was systematically collected from studies included in the British Nutrition Task Force report on diet and CVD and database searches, including Medline and Embase. Although several markers and disorders linked to conventional and emerging risk factors for CVD were identified, the causal link between many remains unknown. There is a need to address the multifactorial nature of CVD and the complex interplay between conventional and emerging risk factors with natural and built environments, while bringing the life course into the spotlight.

Direct oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and heart valve surgery-a meta-analysis and systematic review

AIMS

Oral anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) could provide an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing bioprosthetic heart valve replacement or valve repair.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The aim of this meta-analysis was to review the safety and efficacy of DOAC in patients with surgical implanted bioprosthetic heart valves or valve repairs and AF including data from six clinical trials with a total of 1,857 patients. The efficacy and safety data of DOAC and VKA were pooled to perform random-effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to assess statistical robustness. Death caused by cardiovascular cause or thromboembolic events were comparable (RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.42-1.08; p = 0.10) as DOAC significantly reduced the risk for major bleeding (RR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88; p = 0.01) and thromboembolic stroke or systemic embolism rates (RR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p = 0.02). Rates for intracranial bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07-0.99; p = 0.05) show a trend toward fewer events in the DOAC group. Outcomes for major or minor bleeding events and all-cause mortality were comparable for DOAC and VKA.

CONCLUSION

Cumulative data analysis reveals that DOAC may provide an effective and safe alternative to VKA in patients with AF after surgically implanted bioprosthetic heart valves or repair with AF. Within a relatively heterogeneous study population, this meta-analysis shows a risk reduction of major bleedings and thromboembolic stroke or systemic embolisms for DOAC.

Comparison of the Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) are approved for use in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. warfarin and update the evidence for treatment of AF and valvular heart disease (VHD). Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses comparing the use of DOACS and Warfarin in AF and VHD, including biological and mechanical heart valves (MHV), updating from 2010 to 2020. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, by using the "Rev Man" program 5.3, the primary effectiveness endpoints were stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, while the secondary outcome included intracranial hemorrhage. We performed prespecified subgroup analyses. Data were analyzed by risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and the I-square (I 2) statistic as a quantitative measure of inconsistency. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment of included trials was evaluated with the modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: We screened 326 articles and included 8 RCTs (n = 14.902). DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; P = 0.008; moderate quality evidence; I 2 = 2%) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.66; P = 0.0004; I 2 = 49%) with a similar risk of major bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.24; P = 0.36; I 2 = 88%) compared to Warfarin. Conclusions: In this update, DOACs remained with similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in thromboprophylaxis for AF and VHD.

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Can We Compare Direct Oral Anticoagulants to Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Bio-Prosthetic Valves?

Background There are no clear consensus guidelines on the indications and types of anticoagulation therapies in patients with bio-prosthetic valves either with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) or sinus rhythm. In our meta-analysis, we assessed the safety and efficacy of DOACs as compared to the standard treatment with warfarin in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies in the English language, and studies reporting patients with valvular heart disease that included bioprosthetic valvular disease. A systematic literature review using Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science was performed using the terms "Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant," "Oral Anticoagulants," "Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant," "Atrial Fibrillation," "Bioprosthetic Valve" for literature published prior to January 2021. Extraction of data from included studies was carried out independently by three reviewers from Covidence. We assessed the methodical rigor of the included studies using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results Four RCTs and one observational study (n=1776) were included in our study. A random-effect model using RevMan (version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen) was used for data analysis. The pooled data showed that there was a non-significant reduction in the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism in the patients taking DOACs as compared to warfarin (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.29, 1.67; I2 = 50%). The incidence of major bleeding was lower in the DOACs group; the difference was statistically significant (HR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26, 0.67; I2 = 7%). The difference was not statistically significant for all-cause mortality in both groups (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.91, 1.67; I2 = 0%). Conclusion Our results showed that there was no difference in the outcomes of stroke and systemic embolism between DOACs and warfarin but there were statistically significantly lower major bleeding events. We conclude that larger clinical trials are needed to assess the true safety and efficacy of DOACs in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves.

Off-label Use for Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Valvular Atrial Fibrillation, Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Thrombus, Superficial Vein Thrombosis, Pulmonary Hypertension-a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical literature for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) therapy for non-Food and Drug Administration approved indications.

DATA SOURCES

Articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and OVID databases were reviewed from 1946 through September 4, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Fully published studies assessing DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) with valvular heart disease (VHD), heart failure (HF), left ventricular thrombus (LVT), superficial vein thrombosis (SVT), or pulmonary hypertension (PH) were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Our review showed that DOACs are safe to use in patients with AF and VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valve. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily should be used with caution in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction until further evaluation is performed. Four retrospective studies for DOAC use in patients with LVT showed conflicting results. One phase 3 randomized controlled trial showed noninferiority of rivaroxaban to fondaparinux for SVT treatment. The use of DOACs for pulmonary arterial hypertension was not evaluated in any clinical study, but 2 retrospective studies for the use of DOACs in patients with chronic thromboembolic PH (CTEPH) showed similar efficacy between DOACs and warfarin.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review provides clinicians with a comprehensive literature review surrounding DOAC use in common off-label indications.

CONCLUSION

DOACs can be considered for AF complicated by VHD except for mitral stenosis or mechanical valve replacement. DOACs (especially rivaroxaban) are considered as an alternative therapy for SVT and CTEPH. Further prospective studies for DOAC uses are needed for HF or LVT.

All-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease

AIMS 

To compare the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) treated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or factor Xa-inhibitors (FXa-I; rivaroxaban and apixaban).

METHODS AND RESULTS 

We cross-linked data from Danish nationwide registries identifying patients with AF and VHD (aortic stenosis/insufficiency, mitral insufficiency, bioprosthetic heart valves, mitral-, and aortic valve repair) initiating VKA or FXa-I between January 2014 and June 2017. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding. Using cause-specific Cox regression, we reported the standardized absolute 2-year risk of the outcomes and absolute risk differences (ARD). We identified 1115 (41.7%), 620 (23.1%), and 942 (35.2%) patients initiating treatment with VKA, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. The standardized absolute risk (95% confidence interval) of all-cause mortality associated with VKA treatment was 34.1% (30.4-37.8%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -2.7% (-6.7% to 1.4%). The standardized absolute risk of stroke for VKA was 3.8% (2.2-5.4%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -0.1% (-2.0% to 1.8%). The standardized risk of bleeding for VKA was 10.4% (7.2-12.9%) with corresponding ARD for FXa-I of -2.0% (-5.1% to 1.1%). The risk of bleeding was significantly reduced in subgroup analyses of apixaban compared with VKA [ARD: -3.9% (-7.0% to -0.9%)] and rivaroxaban [ARD: -5.6% (-9.5% to -1.7%)].

CONCLUSION 

In this nationwide cohort study, there were no significant differences in the risks of all-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with AF and VHD treated with VKA compared with FXa-I.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-019-0274-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel Oral Anticoagulants for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is associated with increased risk of stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In the present study, we aimed to investigate the influence of hypertension status in patients with AF receiving treatment with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to November 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated NOACs versus warfarin in patients with AF and hypertension were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using random- or fixed-effects models according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Five trials (72,967 patients, including 51,378 patients with hypertension) were enrolled. NOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.94, n = 51,378 patients), hemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, n = 28,818 patients), death from any cause (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, n = 43,101 patients), major bleeding (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.83, n = 51,378 patients) and intracranial bleeding (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.67, n = 27,185 patients). The benefits of NOACs in comparison with warfarin were consistent in AF patients with or without hypertension (P_interaction for all outcomes > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that NOACs can be recommended for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with AF and hypertension.

The safety of NOACs in atrial fibrillation patient subgroups: A narrative review

AIM

Four non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been evaluated in clinical trials for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although each of the NOACs have been shown to be at least non-inferior to warfarin for efficacy and safety outcomes, controversy remains over the relative safety of each NOAC inpatient subgroups. This narrative review provides an overview of phase III data on NOAC trials for the prevention of stroke in AF, with a focus on reporting the safety of each agent in key patient subgroups based on age, gender, accumulated risk factors, and primary or secondary prevention of stroke.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was completed and, where data permit, analyses of phase III trials of the NOACs are presented for each patient subgroup.

RESULTS

Analyses of key safety outcomes from NOAC trials were completed using primary trial data, including major bleeding and all-cause mortality. The safety of NOACs was generally consistent and favourable compared with warfarin according to patient age, gender, previous history of stroke, and the presence of risk factors for stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety of the NOACs compared with warfarin was generally favourable across different patient subgroups, including those perceived to be at "high risk" for adverse outcomes. However, certain NOACs may be preferable to warfarin in some subgroups, based on indirect analyses.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Elderly population is known to be associated with polymedication, comorbidities and altered drug pharmacokinetics. However, the most adequate oral anticoagulant, attending to its relative efficacy and safety, remains unclear.

METHODS

We searched for phase III randomized controlled trials (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, SciELO collection and Web of Science) comparing novel non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in the elderly population (≥75 years-old) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated using a random effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed in statistically significant results to evaluate whether cumulative sample size was powered.

RESULTS

Four trials rendered data about elderly (≥75 years-old) and younger patients (<75 years-old) with AF. NOACs demonstrated a 30% significant risk reduction (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.80) in elderly patients compared to VKA, without heterogeneity across studies (I² = 0%). The TSA showed that cumulative evidence of this subgroup exceeded the minimum information size required for the risk reduction. In younger patients, VKA and NOACs shared a similar risk of stroke and systemic embolism (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.18). Regarding major bleeding risk in the elderly, the overall comparative risk of NOACs was not different from VKA (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.16; I² = 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs reduce significantly the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in elderly patients without increasing major bleeding events. The dimension of stroke risk reduction was significantly higher in the elderly than in younger adults.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic valves

INTRODUCTION

The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which include dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stoke prevention in most patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The NOACs are contraindicated in atrial fibrillation patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves. There is evidence that bioprosthetic heart valves are less thrombogenic than mechanical heart valves, but it is unknown whether the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic valves differs from that in patients without such valves. Areas covered: The authors present a review of the efficacy and safety evidence surrounding the use of NOACs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic heart valves. Expert commentary: While the data is limited, there is no significant difference in thromboembolic, and bleeding outcomes in patients with AF and bioprosthetic heart valves treated with NOAC therapy. Future studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the safety and efficacy of NOAC therapy in AF patients bioprosthetic heart valves.