Outcomes of Patients with a Mechanical Heart Valve and Poor Anticoagulation Control on Warfarin

BACKGROUND

 Patients with a mechanical heart valve (MHV) require oral anticoagulation. Poor anticoagulation control is thought to be associated with adverse outcomes, but data are limited.

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the risks of clinical outcomes in patients with a MHV and poor anticoagulation control on warfarin.

PATIENTS/METHODS

 We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing MHV implantation at a tertiary care center (2010-2019). Primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or prosthetic valve thrombosis. Major bleeding and death were key secondary outcomes. We constructed multivariable regression models to assess the association between time in therapeutic range (TTR) on warfarin beyond 90 days after surgery with outcomes.

RESULTS

 We included 671 patients with a MHV (80.6% in aortic, 14.6% in mitral position; mean age 61 years, 30.3% female). Median follow-up was 4.9 years, mean TTR was 62.5% (14.5% TTR <40%, 24.6% TTR 40-60%, and 61.0% TTR >60%). Overall rates of the primary outcome, major bleeding, and death were 0.73, 1.41, and 1.44 per 100 patient-years. Corresponding rates for patients with TTR <40% were 1.31, 2.77, and 3.22 per 100 patient-years. In adjusted analyses, every 10% decrement in TTR was associated with a 31% increase in hazard for the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.52), 34% increase in major bleeding (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17-1.52), and 32% increase in death (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57).

CONCLUSION

 In contemporary patients with a MHV, poor anticoagulation control on warfarin was associated with increased risks of thrombotic events, bleeding, and death.

Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on nonfatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit.

Methods

We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) vs prophylactic anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 through 19 January 2022. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events (at end of follow-up or discharge) and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation.

Results

Eleven RCTs were included (N = 5873). Intensified vs prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with a mortality reduction up to 45 days (risk ratio [RR], 0.93 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .79–1.10]). There was a possible signal of mortality reduction for non–intensive care unit (ICU) patients, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .49–1.44]; I² = 75%). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced (RR, 0.53 [95% CI, .41–.69]; I² = 0%), with effect driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing (interaction P = .04). Major bleeding was increased with intensified anticoagulation (RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.17–2.56]) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting.

Conclusions

Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on mortality among hospitalized adults with COVID-19 and is associated with increased bleeding risk. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend toward reduced mortality in non-ICU settings requires exploration in additional RCTs.

Clinical Trials Registration. CRD42021273449 (PROSPERO).

Efficacy and safety of intensified versus standard prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in patients with Covid-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported inconsistent effects from intensified anticoagulation on clinical outcomes in Covid-19. We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis from available trials to quantify effect on non-fatal and fatal outcomes and identify subgroups who may benefit.

Methods

We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing intensified (intermediate or therapeutic dose) versus standard prophylactic dose anticoagulation in adults with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 through 19 January 2022. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality at end of follow-up or discharge. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate pooled risk ratios for mortality, thrombotic, and bleeding events, and performed subgroup analysis for clinical setting and dose of intensified anticoagulation.

Results

Eleven RCTs were included (n = 5873). Intensified anticoagulation was not associated with a reduction in mortality for up to 45 days compared with prophylactic anticoagulation: 17.5% (501/2861) died in the intensified anticoagulation group and 18.8% (513/2734) died in the prophylactic anticoagulation group, relative risk (RR) 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79 - 1.10. On subgroup analysis, there was a possible signal of mortality reduction for inpatients admitted to general wards, although with low precision and high heterogeneity (5 studies; RR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 - 1.44; I ² = 75%) and not significantly different to studies performed in the ICU (interaction P = 0.51). Risk of venous thromboembolism was reduced with intensified anticoagulation compared with prophylaxis (8 studies; RR 0.53, 95%CI 0.41 - 0.69; I ² = 0%). This effect was driven by therapeutic rather than intermediate dosing on subgroup analysis (interaction P =0.04). Major bleeding was increased with use of intensified anticoagulation (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17 - 2.56) with no interaction for dosing and clinical setting.

Conclusion

Intensified anticoagulation has no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and is associated with increased risk of bleeding. The observed reduction in venous thromboembolism risk and trend towards reduced mortality in non-ICU hospitalised patients requires exploration in additional RCTs.

Summary

In this aggregate data meta-analysis, use of intensified anticoagulation had no effect on short term mortality among hospitalised adults with Covid-19 and was associated with increased risk of bleeding.

Oral anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) compared with antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in adult patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS).

Method

We searched major databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) for RCTs published until March 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke, and the main safety outcomes were major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNB). We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We used a random-effects model to determine pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals in the datasets and key subgroups.

Findings

Our search identified two RCTs, involving a total of 12,603 patients with ESUS. Anticoagulation with dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with aspirin did not reduce the risk of recurrent stroke (RR, 0.96 [0.76–1.20]) or increase major bleeding (RR, 1.77 [0.80–3.89]) but significantly increased the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR, 1.57 [1.26–1.97]). Prespecified subgroup analysis demonstrated consistent results according to age and sex. Additional post-hoc subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent results according to prior stroke and presence of a patent foramen ovale but suggested that DOACs reduced recurrent stroke in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <50 and 50-80 ml/min but not in those with eGFR >80 ml/min (interaction P = 0.0234).

Discussion/conclusion

Direct oral anticoagulations are not more effective than aspirin in preventing stroke recurrence in patients with ESUS and increase bleeding.

Registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42019138593

Comparison of phenolic content and antioxidant activity of two common fruits of Bangladesh in solvents of varying polarities

Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of two common fruits of Bangladesh, namely Phyllunthus emblica and Elaeocarpus floribundus, were measured in water, methanol, ethanol, acetone and hexane extracts. Several in vitro models including phosphomolybdenum assay, DPPH free radical scavenging assay, FRAP assay and reducing power assay were used to assess the antioxidant activity of these extracts in comparison with reference antioxidants. Between the two fruits, P. emblica showed higher phenolic content and antioxidant activity in all the solvents used. In the DPPH scavenging assay, the activity of P. emblica extracts was close to reference antioxidants, ascorbic acid and BHT. Besides, considering the solvents used, extracts of both fruits had the highest phenolic and antioxidant activity in polar solvents. The correlation coefficient between total phenolics and antioxidant activities was found statistically significant. These findings suggest that P. emblica could be an excellent antioxidant resource for industries like food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetics.