Why the study?
The appropriate periprocedural management of oral anticoagulation in TAVI patients requiring long-term anticoagulation remains controversial.
Does periprocedural continuation of anticoagulation improve outcomes or reduce complications compared to interruption in patients undergoing TAVI with an indication for long-term anticoagulation?
Does periprocedural continuation of anticoagulation improve outcomes or reduce complications compared to interruption in patients undergoing TAVI with an indication for long-term anticoagulation?
Continuing anticoagulation during TAVI in patients with long-term indications is associated with a reduced risk of stroke without increasing bleeding risk compared to interrupting therapy.
No difference in composite outcomes with periprocedural anticoagulation continuation during TAVI; extends evidence on stroke reduction but requires dedicated RCTs.
BACKGROUND: The appropriate periprocedural management of oral anticoagulation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) patients who require long-term anticoagulation remains controversial. PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of periprocedural continuation versus interruption of anticoagulation in patients undergoing TAVI with an indication for long-term anticoagulation. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases to identify relevant articles. We included both observational and randomized controlled trials. Data were analysed using random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Four studies comprising 3,144 patients, with anticoagulation continued in 1,500 (47.7%) patients were included. There were no difference between periprocedural continuation and interruption of anticoagulation in the incidence of composite outcomes (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.64-1.10; p = .19), major bleeding (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.57-1.68; p = .95), major vascular complications (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72-1.20; p = .60), and myocardial infarction (MI) (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.20-1.77; p = .36). However, the incidence of stroke was significantly lower in the continuation group (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.94; p = .03). The incidence of blood transfusion was not significantly different between the continuation and interruption groups (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.42-1.77; p = .68). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis comparing periprocedural continuation of anticoagulation to interruption of therapy in patients undergoing TAVI with concomitant indications for long-term anticoagulation, continuation of anticoagulation was associated with a lower incidence of stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. These findings suggest a potentially favourable safety profile in favour of continuation of anticoagulant therapy, they should be interpreted with caution and validated in larger and well-designed randomised trials. The review protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number (CRD42024607149).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adamu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: