Search

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research. [Display omitted] • Target-specific (or direct) oral anticoagulants are preferred for prevention or treatment of thromboembolism in most patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. • DOACs should not be the standard treatment for patients with mechanical heart valves, atrial fibrillation with rheumatic mitral stenosis, or antiphospholipid syndrome. • The efficacy and safety of DOACs remain uncertain for several other clinical conditions and subgroups, and future studies should address those situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no established recommendation for antithrombotic treatment following transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR). However, based on the analogy with surgical mitral bioprosthesis, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are predominantly used. The purpose of this study was to compare bleeding and thrombotic events associated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or VKAs in a prospective cohort of TMVR patients. We enrolled consecutive patients who underwent transseptal TMVR using a SAPIEN family prosthesis at our center between 2011 and 2023. The primary outcome was the occurrence of bleeding. VKAs were administered to patients until October 2019, after which DOACs were prescribed. The median follow-up was 4.7 months (Q1-Q3: 2.6-6.7 months). A total of 156 patients were included. The mean age was 65 ± 18.5 years, and 103 patients (66%) were women. The median EuroSCORE II was 7.48% (Q1-Q3: 3.80%-12.97%). Of the participants, 20.5% received DOACs and 79.5% were treated with VKAs. The primary outcome was observed in 50 (40%) patients in the VKA group and 3 (9%) patients in the DOAC group (adjusted HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.74; P = 0.02). Treatment with DOAC was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. No significant differences were found in terms of thrombotic events, major vascular complications, stroke, or death. The use of DOACs after TMVR, compared with VKAs, appears to reduce the risk of bleeding complications and decrease the length of hospital stay for patients, without a significant increase in the risk of thrombotic events. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electrophysiological and interventional procedures have been increasingly used to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients experiencing cardiovascular diseases. Although antithrombotic therapies are critical to reduce the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic events, they can nonetheless increase the bleeding hazard. This is even more true in an aging population undergoing cardiac procedures in which the combination of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapies would further increase the hemorrhagic risk. Hence, the timing, dose, and combination of antithrombotic therapies should be carefully chosen in each case. However, the maze of society guidelines and consensus documents published so far have progressively led to a hazier scenario in this setting. Aim of this review is to provide—in a single document—a quick, evidenced-based practical summary of the antithrombotic approaches used in different cardiac electrophysiology and interventional procedures to guide the busy clinician and the cardiac proceduralist in their everyday practice. [Display omitted] • Cardiac electrophysiological and other interventional procedures can usually be performed safely without interrupting (or only briefly interrupting) oral anticoagulants. • OAC can be combined with a single antiplatelet agent and is feasible in patients with AF undergoing PCI. • The long-term antithrombotic strategy should be individualized based on the balance of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal strategy for thromboprophylaxis in patients with a Fontan circulation is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin, warfarin, and nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in a network meta-analysis. Relevant studies published by February 2022 were included. The primary efficacy outcome was thromboembolic events; major bleeding was a secondary safety outcome. Frequentist network meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of both outcomes. Ranking of treatments was performed based on probability (P) score. A total of 21 studies were included (26,546 patient-years). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, NOAC (IRR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.03-0.40), warfarin (IRR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.14-0.37), and aspirin (IRR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.15-0.39) were all associated with significantly lower rates of thromboembolic events. However, the network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in the rates of major bleeding (NOAC: IRR: 1.45 [95% CI: 0.28-7.43]; warfarin: IRR: 1.38 [95% CI: 0.41-4.69]; and aspirin: IRR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.20-2.58]). Rankings, which simultaneously analyze competing interventions, suggested that NOACs have the highest P score to prevent thromboembolic events (P score 0.921), followed by warfarin (P score 0.582), aspirin (P score 0.498), and no thromboprophylaxis (P score 0.001). Aspirin tended to have the most favorable overall profile. Aspirin, warfarin, and NOAC are associated with lower risk of thromboembolic events. Recognizing the limited number of patients and heterogeneity of studies using NOACs, the results support the safety and efficacy of NOACs in patients with a Fontan circulation. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) remain controversial.Objectives: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DOACs with vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs).Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 9, 2022. The two main efficacy outcomes were a composite of arterial thrombotic events, and venous thromboembolic events (VTE). The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Random effects models with inverse variance were used.Results: Our search retrieved 253 studies. Four open-label RCTs involving 472 patients were included (mean control-arm time-in-therapeutic-range: 60%). All had proper random sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment. Overall, use of DOACs compared with VKAs was associated with increased odds of subsequent arterial thrombotic events (OR 5.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-15.75, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), especially stroke, and composite of arterial thrombotic events or VTE (OR 4.46, 95% CI 1.12-17.84, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). The odds of subsequent VTE (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.31-4.55, p = 0.79, I2 = 0%), or major bleeding (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.42-2.47, p = 0.97, I2 = 0%) were not significantly different between the two groups. Most findings were consistent within subgroups.Conclusions: Patients with thrombotic APS randomized to DOACs compared to VKAs appear to have increased risk for arterial thrombosis. No significant differences were observed between patients randomized to DOACs vs VKAs in the risk of subsequent VTE or major bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after coronary stenting in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) presenting with an acute coronary syndrome remains unclear.Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of an abbreviated APT regimen after coronary stenting in an HBR population presenting with acute or recent myocardial infarction.Methods: In the MASTER DAPT trial, 4,579 patients at HBR were randomized after 1 month of dual APT (DAPT) to abbreviated (DAPT stopped and 11 months single APT or 5 months in patients with oral anticoagulants) or nonabbreviated APT (DAPT for minimum 3 months) strategies. Randomization was stratified by acute or recent myocardial infarction at index procedure. Coprimary outcomes at 335 days after randomization were net adverse clinical outcomes events (NACE); major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE); and type 2, 3, or 5 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding.Results: NACE and MACCE did not differ with abbreviated vs nonabbreviated APT regimens in patients with an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 1,780; HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12 and HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.62-1.19, respectively) or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (n = 2,799; HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.77-1.38 and HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.80-1.59; Pinteraction = 0.31 and 0.25, respectively). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was significantly reduced in patients with or without an acute or recent myocardial infarction (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91 and HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.72) with abbreviated APT.Conclusions: A 1-month DAPT strategy in patients with HBR presenting with an acute or recent myocardial infarction results in similar NACE and MACCE rates and reduces bleedings compared with a nonabbreviated DAPT strategy. (Management of High Bleeding Risk Patients Post Bioresorbable Polymer Coated Stent Implantation With an Abbreviated Versus Prolonged DAPT Regimen [MASTER DAPT]; NCT03023020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pivotal trials of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) used specific postprocedure treatment protocols.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate patterns of postprocedure care after LAAO with the Watchman device in clinical practice and compare the risk of adverse events for different discharge antithrombotic strategies.Methods: We evaluated patients in the LAAO Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry who underwent LAAO with the Watchman device between 2016 and 2018. We assessed adherence to the full postprocedure trial protocol including standardized follow-up, imaging, and antithrombotic agents and then evaluated the most commonly used antithrombotic strategies and compared the rates and risk of adverse events at 45 days and 6 months by means of multivariable COX frailty regression.Results: Among 31,994 patients undergoing successful LAAO, only 12.2% received the full postprocedure treatment protocol studied in pivotal trials; the most common protocol deviations were with discharge antithrombotic medications. The most common discharge medication strategies were warfarin and aspirin (36.9%), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin only (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (5.0%). In multivariable Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event through the 45-day follow-up visit were significantly lower for discharge on warfarin alone (HR: 0.692; 95% CI: 0.569-0.841) and DOAC alone (HR: 0.731; 95% CI: 0.574-0.930) compared with warfarin and aspirin. Warfarin alone retained lower risk at the 6-month follow-up.Conclusions: In contemporary U.S. practice, practitioners rarely used the full U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved postprocedure treatment protocols studied in pivotal trials of the Watchman device. Discharge after implantation on warfarin or DOAC without concomitant aspirin was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin is underused for atrial fibrillation (AF). The availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may improve overall OAC rates in AF patients, but a large-scale evaluation of their effects has not been conducted.Objectives: This study assessed the effect of DOAC availability on overall OAC rates for nonvalvular AF.Methods: Between April 1, 2008 and September 30, 2014, we identified 655,000 patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of >1 in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE registry. Temporal trends in overall OAC and individual warfarin and DOAC use were analyzed. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression identified patient factors associated with OAC and DOAC use. Practice variation of OAC and DOAC use was also assessed.Results: Overall OAC rates increased from 52.4% to 60.7% among eligible AF patients (p for trend <0.01). Warfarin use decreased from 52.4% to 34.8% (p for trend <0.01), and DOAC use increased from 0% to 25.8% (p for trend <0.01). An increasing CHA2DS2-VASc score was associated with higher OAC use (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.07), but with lower DOAC use (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.98). Significant practice variation was present in OAC use (median odds ratio [MOR]: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.45 to 1.57) and in DOAC use (MOR: 3.58; 95% CI: 3.05 to 4.13).Conclusions: Introduction of DOACs in routine practice was associated with improved rates of overall OAC use for AF, but significant gaps remain. In addition, there is significant practice-level variation in OAC and DOAC use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not require frequent laboratory monitoring, each compound requires dose adjustments on the basis of certain clinical criteria.Objectives: This study assessed the frequency of off-label NOAC doses among AF patients and the associations between off-label dose therapy and clinical outcomes in community practice.Methods: We evaluated 5,738 patients treated with a NOAC at 242 ORBIT-AF II (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation phase II) sites. NOAC doses were classified as either underdosed or overdosed, consistent with Food and Drug Administration labeling. Longitudinal outcomes (median follow-up: 0.99 years) included stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, major bleeding (International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria), cause-specific hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.Results: Overall, 541 NOAC-treated patients (9.4%) were underdosed, 197 were overdosed (3.4%), and 5,000 were dosed according to U.S. labeling (87%). Compared with patients receiving the recommended dose, those who were receiving off-label doses were older (median: 79 and 80 years of age vs. 70 years of age, respectively; p < 0.0001), more likely female (48% and 67% vs. 40%, respectively; p < 0.0001), less likely to be treated by an electrophysiologist (18% and 19% vs. 27%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (96% and 97% ≥2 vs. 86%, respectively; p < 0.0001) and higher ORBIT bleeding scores (25% and 31% >4 vs. 11%, respectively; p < 0.0001). After dose adjustment, NOAC overdosing was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with recommended doses (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 3.60; p = 0.04). Underdosing was associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.50; p = 0.007).Conclusions: A significant minority (almost 1 in 8) of U.S. patients in the community received NOAC doses inconsistent with labeling. NOAC over- and underdosing are associated with increased risk for adverse events. (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II [ORBIT-AF II]; NCT01701817). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]