Key result
In patients after TAVR, NOACs showed no significant difference in the combined endpoint compared to VKA for those with an anticoagulation indication (HR 1.03), but were associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.74) compared to antiplatelets in those without an indication.
Why the study?
The authors aimed to compare non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants with traditional antithrombotic therapies, including vitamin K antagonists and antiplatelet agents, in patients after TAVR.
Do non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) improve outcomes in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to vitamin K antagonists or antiplatelet agents?
Meta-Analysis (n=10,563)
Do non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) improve outcomes in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to vitamin K antagonists or antiplatelet agents?
Hazard Ratio: 1.03 (95% CI 0.84–1.25)
p-value: p=0.80
In patients post-TAVR, NOACs are noninferior to VKA when oral anticoagulation is indicated, but are associated with increased mortality compared to antiplatelets when anticoagulation is not indicated.
Supports NOAC use as noninferior alternative to VKA post-TAVR with OAC indication; extends pooled evidence from mixed RCTs and observational data.
Objective: We aimed to compare non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with a traditional antithrombotic such as vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and antiplatelet agents in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until November 2021 for studies involving comparisons of any type of NOACs, including dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban, with VKA or antiplatelet agents after TAVR. A comparison of NOACs versus VKA was performed in patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation. In addition, we compared NOACs versus antiplatelet in patients without such indication. We calculated the hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine long-term outcomes. The primary outcome was a combined endpoint consisting of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or any related clinical adverse events. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and stroke, respectively. Results: A total of 10 studies including 10,563 patients after TAVR were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in any of the long-term outcomes between the NOAC and VKA groups. Although there were no significant differences in the combined endpoint, major bleeding, or stroke, a significant difference was observed in the all-cause mortality (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.25–2.43, p = 0.001) between the NOAC and antiplatelet groups. Conclusion: For patients with an indication for oral anticoagulation after TAVR, NOACs seem to be associated with noninferior outcomes compared with VKA therapy. However, for patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation, NOACs appear to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause death as compared with antiplatelet treatment. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , identifier CRD42020155122.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n=10,563). Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or antiplatelet agents was evaluated on Combined endpoint consisting of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or any related clinical adverse events (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84-1.25, p=0.80). In patients after TAVR, NOACs showed no significant difference in the combined endpoint compared to VKA for those with an anticoagulation indication (HR 1.03), but were associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.74) compared to antiplatelets in those without an indication.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: