Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in post transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients with clinical indication for oral anticoagulation: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with clinical indication, but the optimal antithrombotic regimen remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients undergoing TAVR with concomitant indication of OAC.HypothesisComparing with VKAs therapy, NOACs are similar in reducing the all‐cause mortality and major bleeding in post‐TAVR patients requiring OAC medication.MethodsWe searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to identify studies that investigated NOACs versus VKAs after TAVR in patients with another indication of OAC, which were published before 28th September 28, 2021. The effectiveness of outcomes was all‐cause mortality and stroke or systemic embolism, while the main safety outcome was major and/or life‐threatening bleeding. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of treatment effect.ResultsOur search identified eight studies. We included 4947 post‐TAVR patients with another indication of OAC allocated to the NOAC (n = 2146) or VKA groups (n = 2801). There were no significant differences in the all‐cause mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77–1.08, p = .29, I 2 = 47%), stroke or systemic embolism (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.68–1.37, p = .84, I 2 = 0%), and major and/or life‐threatening bleeding (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.89–1.32, p = .40, I 2 = 30%) in both groups.ConclusionAmong post‐TAVR patients who required OAC therapy, NOACs therapy compared to VKAs is similar in reducing the all‐cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major and/or life‐threatening bleeding events.