Pericarbon pericardial valve prosthesis: midterm results of the aortic valve replacement

Antithrombotic therapy following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

The life expectancy of the general population is increasing. This has meant that more elderly patients are requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR). The choice of valve replacement and its durability are important. Bioprosthetic (tissue) heart valves were introduced into clinical use in the 1960s and were developed primarily to reduce the complications associated with thromboembolism (TE) and the need for lifelong oral anticoagulation, due to their low thrombogenicity compared to mechanical prostheses. This makes them suitable for use in elderly patients (aged>65 years) and in others where the risks of anticoagulation are higher or anticoagulation is contraindicated. There is thought to be a higher risk of TE for up to 90 days following bioprosthetic AVR. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) all recommend the use of an anticoagulation regimen for the first 3 months following bioprosthetic AVR. However, there is division of opinion and practice, despite these recommendations, and more recent studies have not supported the evidence for these guidelines. In this article, we review the literature on the use of anticoagulation in the first 90 days following bioprosthetic AVR.

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+).

Antithrombotic therapy in valvular heart disease

Whether antithrombotic therapy in elderly patients differs from that in younger populations depends on whether the risk for such bleeding differs in the elderly. Regarding long-term therapy with warfarin derivatives, evidence shows that there is a difference. The anticoagulation response to warfarin is exaggerated with advancing age. This article discusses antithrombotic therapies for valvular heart disease, including bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthetic heart valves, aspirin and dipyridamole in combination with oral anticoagulant therapy, antiplatelet agents alone or in combination with very low dose warfarin, tilting disk valves, valve position, first-generation valves compared with modern valves, interruption of anticoagulant therapy, and miscellaneous indications for antithrombotic therapy.

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.