Am J Med. 2021 Oct 8:S0002-9343(21)00589-1. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.08.026. Online ahead of print.
BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves are at high risk for thromboembolic events. The pooled efficacy and safety of NOACs, as a class, relative to warfarin in this population is not well known. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs relative to warfarin in patients with bioprosthetic valves or valve repair.
METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing NOACs to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair. We pooled outcomes for stroke or systemic embolism; ischemic stroke; hemorrhagic stroke; and major bleeding.
RESULTS: We included 4 trials with 1,379 patients, of whom 723 (52.4%) received a NOAC. Mean follow-up ranged from 90 days to 2.8 years. In the pooled analysis, stroke or systemic embolism was significantly lower in patients treated with NOACs (1.9%) compared with warfarin (3.7%) (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.22-0.85; p=0.02). Ischemic stroke (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.18-2.93), hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.05), cardiovascular death (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.38-1.62), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.55-1.62) were not significantly different between groups. Major bleeding was significantly lower in patients treated with NOAC (2.8%) compared with warfarin (4.7%) (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.88; p=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair, NOACs are associated with a reduced incidence of thromboembolic events and major bleeding as compared with warfarin. Thus, NOACs may be considered a preferred option for this patient population.
PMID:34634252 | DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.08.026