Efficacy and safety outcomes in novel oral anticoagulants versus vitamin-K antagonist on post-TAVI patients: a meta-analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonist after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVE

After transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the optimal regimen of anticoagulant therapy in patients with an additional indication for oral anticoagulation remains a matter of debate. This study investigates the efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients after TAVI in a real-world population.

METHODS

The German Aortic Valve RegistrY (GARY) is a prospective, multicentre registry enrolling patients undergoing invasive treatment for aortic valve disease. From January 2011 to December 2019, 1 41 790 patients from 92 hospitals in Germany were enrolled. Anticoagulatory treatment regimens were assessed at hospital discharge for patients after TAVI procedures. All-cause mortality and the combined endpoint 'cardiac and cerebrovascular events' containing myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, aortic prosthesis reintervention and all-cause mortality in the first year after TAVI were examined by treatment regimen.

RESULTS

Of 45 598 patients (mean age 80.7±5.7 years, 49.3% males) undergoing TAVI, 16 974 patients (37.2%) received an anticoagulant regimen that included VKA or DOAC. Hereof, the majority of patients were prescribed VKA (n=11 333, 66.8%) compared with DOAC (n=5641, 33.2%) with an increase of DOAC use from 9.4% in 2011 to 69.9% in 2019. During the 1-year follow-up, the absolute event rates per 100 person-years for all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint cardiac and cerebrovascular events were 1.9 and 1.3 for VKA-treated and 1.7 and 1.2 for DOAC-treated patients, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, all-cause mortality (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, p=0.114) and cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, p=0.071) did not differ significantly between VKA and DOAC groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports evidence of the efficacy of DOAC use after TAVI in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation.

Meta-Analysis Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin K Antagonists Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a higher risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF after TAVI remains unclear. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in these patients. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched till January 31, 2023, for relevant studies evaluating clinical outcomes of VKA versus DOAC in patients with AF after TAVI. Outcomes assessed were (1) all-cause mortality, (2) stroke, (3) major/life-threatening bleeding, and (4) any bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled in meta-analysis using random effect model. Nine studies (2 randomized and 7 observational) were included in systematic review, and 8 studies with 25,769 patients were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 48.3% were male. Pooled analysis using random-effects model showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.10, p = 0.33), stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.70), and major/life-threatening bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35, p = 0.70) in patients that received DOAC compared with oral VKA. Risk of any bleeding was lower in the DOAC group compared with oral VKA (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91, p = 0.0001). In patients with AF, DOACs appear to be a safe alternative oral anticoagulation strategy to oral VKA after TAVI. Further randomized studies are required to confirm the role of DOACs in those patients.

Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in bioprosthetic valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Direct oral anticoagulants are efficient alternatives to vitamin K antagonists. There is little evidence regarding their use in patients who underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement whether surgically or through a transcatheter approach and have another indication of anticoagulation. Trials have compared different members of the DOACs family to VKAs and showed that they were at least non-inferior to VKAs with regard to safety and efficacy. However, this is still controversial. Our meta-analysis aims at providing a clearer view of their future use in this subgroup of patients.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane were searched for randomised clinical trials and observational studies. Bleeding, stroke, and all-cause mortality were the outcomes of interest.

Results

Ten papers with a total of 4,088 patients were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the incidence of bleeding between DOACs and warfarin (16% vs. 17%, OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.56-1.57], p = 0.81, I 2 = 81%). No statistical difference was found in stroke between both groups (2.5% vs. 3.3%, OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.41-1.38], p = 0.36, I 2 = 35%). All-cause mortality was not statistically significant between both groups (9.2% vs. 13.7%, OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.68-1.07], p = 0.16, I 2 = 56%). Interestingly, subgroup analysis of randomised controlled trials and prospective studies favoured DOACs with lower risks of both bleeding and stroke.

Conclusion

Direct oral anticoagulants appear to be at least as safe and effective as VKAs in patients with bioprosthetic valves and another indication of anticoagulation. There could be potential benefit from the use of DOACs; however, further evidence is required.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021222146, identifier CRD42021222146.

Comparing Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular disease in the elderly population and the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) increases in the elderly population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) becomes an important treatment for patients with AS at high surgical risk. This metanalysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with AF undergoing TAVR. We searched the different databases for articles published before January 31, 2022. In total, 7 studies including 25,255 patients were analyzed. Data on demographics, comorbidities, CHA2DS2-VASc score, Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, and incidences of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), stroke, and thromboembolic events were obtained and analyzed. The VKA group had a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score (3.2  ±  1.2 vs 3.3  ±  1.2; P < .001) and a higher STS score (6.6  ±  3.2 vs 6.1  ±  2.9; P < .001) than the DOAC group. The risks of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.16), ischemic stroke (OR: 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.24), and thromboembolism (OR: 1.24; 95% CI, 0.63-2.47) in the DOAC group were comparable to the VKA group. The risks of major bleeding (OR: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84) and ICH (OR: 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90) were lower in the DOAC group compared to the VKA group. DOACs were associated with lower risks of major bleeding and ICH, and comparable risks of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and thromboembolism in patients with AF undergoing TAVR compared to VKAs.

Bayesian Meta-analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Vitamin K Antagonists With or Without Concomitant Antiplatelet After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Anticoagulation Indication

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) commonly have co-morbidities requiring anticoagulation. However, the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen is not well-established. This meta-analysis investigates safety and efficacy outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA), with or without concomitant antiplatelet therapy. We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE for appropriate studies. Subgroup analyses were performed for anticoagulant monotherapy and combined therapy with antiplatelet agents. Eleven studies (6359 patients) were included. Overall, there were no differences between DOACs and VKA for all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR]: .69; Credible Interval [CrI]: .40–1.06), cardiovascular-related mortality (OR: .76; Crl: .13–3.47), bleeding (OR: .95; CrI: .75–1.17), stroke (OR: 1.04; CrI: .65–1.63), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.51; CrI: .55–3.84), and valve thrombosis (OR: .29; CrI: .01–3.54). For DOACs vs VKA monotherapy subgroup, there were no differences in outcomes. For the combined therapy subgroup, there was decreased odds of all-cause mortality in the DOACs group compared with the VKA group (OR: .13; CrI: .02–.65), but no differences for bleeding and stroke. DOACs and VKA have similar safety and efficacy profiles for post-TAVI patients with anticoagulation indication. However, if concomitant antiplatelet therapy is required, DOACs were more favorable than VKA for all-cause mortality.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) are Non-Inferior to Vitamin K Antagonists for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Indications of Anticoagulation

Background

The best anticoagulation choice for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with indications of oral anticoagulation (OAC) remains uncertain. We carried out a comprehensive analysis adopting updated evidence that investigated the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this population.

Methods

A systematic search has been conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world studies comparing the therapy outcomes of DOACs with VKAs in patients undergoing TAVR with indications of OAC up to Dec 2021. Included studies reported all-cause mortality, bleeding, stroke, or composite endpoint. A random-effects model was used and followed a sensitivity analysis based on the heterogeneity. In addition, five scenario analyses were performed to robust our findings.

Results

Our analysis included 11 articles enrolling a total of 8934 patients undergone TAVR with indications of OAC (DOACs group = 3890, VKAs group = 5044). Pooled analysis revealed no significant different risk of all-cause mortality (aHR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.65-1.39, I 2 : 90.6%), stroke (aHR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55-1.35, I 2 : 44.3%), bleeding (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.61-1.13, I 2 : 76.3%), and composite endpoint (aHR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.88-1.24, I 2 : 11.7%) in the DOACs and VKAs groups. Various forms of death, stroke and bleeding, including cardiovascular death (aHR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.64-1.33, I 2 : 34.1%), hemorrhagic stroke (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.23-1.75, I 2 : 22.7%), ischemic stroke (aHR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.15, I 2 : 0.0%), transient ischemic attack (aHR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.40-1.41, I 2 : 0.0%), major or life-threatening bleeding (aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.74-1.24, I 2 : 27.9%), and minor bleeding (aHR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.52-1.57, I 2 : 54.3%), also showed similar rates among DOACs and VKAs groups. The results based on five scenarios confirmed the said findings.

Conclusions

Compared with VKAs, the efficacy and safety of DOACs were comparable for treating TAVR patients combined with anticoagulation indications. Further large-scale RCTs investigating more detailed scenarios are still needed to confirm the optimal anticoagulation strategy.

Novel oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to the current guideline-recommended vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not been well established. We pooled evidence from all available studies to assess the risks and benefits of this drug class.

METHODS

We queried electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane central) up until January 28th, 2022 for studies comparing NOACs to VKAs in AF patients undergoing TAVR. Results from studies were presented as risk ratios (RR) and pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis by study design and meta-regression analysis were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (3 RCTs and 9 observational) containing 12,203 patients (mean age 81.2 years; 50.5% men) were identified and included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed no significant difference between NOACs and VKAs in terms of stroke or systemic embolism (RR: 0.78; p = 0.18), major bleeding (RR: 0.84; p = 0.32), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.61; p = 0.06), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.69; p = 0.07), and myocardial infarction (RR: 1.60; p = 0.24) at a mean length of follow-up of 15.1 months. RCTs and observational studies did not significantly differ across outcomes on subgroup analysis. Meta-regression analysis found heterogeneity in all-cause mortality to be significantly explained by percentage of males (coefficient: 0.049, p = 0.007), mean age (coefficient: 0.221, p < 0.001), and CHA2DS2-VASc score (coefficient: -1.657, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that outcomes with NOACs do not significantly differ compared to VKAs following TAVR in patients with AF.

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulant After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: We aimed to compare non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with a traditional antithrombotic such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and antiplatelet agents in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until November 2021 for studies involving comparisons of any type of NOACs, including dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban, with VKA or antiplatelet agents after TAVR. A comparison of NOACs versus VKA was performed in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. In addition, we compared NOACs versus antiplatelet in patients without such indication. We calculated the hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine long-term outcomes. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint consisting of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or any related clinical adverse events. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and stroke, respectively. Results: A total of 10 studies including 10,563 patients after TAVR were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in any of the long-term outcomes between the NOAC and VKA groups. Although there were no significant differences in the combined endpoint, major bleeding, or stroke, a significant difference was observed in the all-cause mortality (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25-2.43, p = 0.001) between the NOAC and antiplatelet groups. Conclusion: For patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation after TAVR, NOACs seem to be associated with noninferior outcomes compared with VKA therapy. However, for patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation, NOACs appear to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause death as compared with antiplatelet treatment. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier CRD42020155122.

Real-World Anticoagulatory Treatment After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective, Observational Study on 4,800 Patients

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has developed to the therapy of choice for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement and elderly patients with intermediate or high operative risk. However, the optimal anticoagulant therapy post-TAVR still remains a matter of debate.

Aims: This study sought to investigate current anticoagulant treatment patterns and clinical outcome in patients undergoing TAVR.

Methods: In a retrospective study based on anonymized health claims data of approximately seven million Germans with statutory health insurance (InGef database), anticoagulant treatment regimens were assessed using any drug prescription post discharge within the first 90 days after TAVR procedure. Clinical events between 30 days and 6 months were examined by treatment regime.

Results: The study population comprised 4,812 patients with TAVR between 2014 and 2018: 29.4% received antiplatelet monotherapy, 17.8% dual antiplatelet therapy, 17.4% oral anticoagulation (OAC) plus antiplatelet therapy, 12.9% OAC monotherapy, 2.2% triple therapy and 19.2% did not receive any anticoagulatory drugs. Sixty-four percentage of patients with OAC received direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). Hence, 68% of all patients were treated non-adherent to current guidelines. Forty percentage of patients with OAC prior to TAVR did not have any OAC after TAVR. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly increased in patients with OAC (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03–1.90, p = 0.03) and no anticoagulatory treatment (HR 3.95, 95% CI 2.95–5.27, p < 0.0001) when compared to antiplatelet monotherapy.

Conclusions: This large real-world data analysis demonstrates substantial deviations from guideline recommendations and treatment after TAVR. Considering relevant differences in clinical outcome across treatment groups, major effort is warranted to examine underlying causes and improve guideline adherence.