Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Clin Cardiol. 2019 May;42(5):568-571. doi: 10.1002/clc.23178. Epub 2019 Apr 9.
The optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.
We evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.
Using data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.
In ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.
In patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00412984.
对于合并心房颤动(AF)和生物瓣置换或原生瓣膜修复的患者,最佳抗凝策略仍不确定。
我们评估了阿哌沙班与华法林在合并 AF 病史且有生物瓣置换或原生瓣膜修复病史的患者中的安全性和疗效。
利用来自心房颤动患者中应用阿哌沙班减少卒中和其他血栓栓塞事件的评估(ARISTOTLE)(n = 18201)的随机试验数据,该试验比较了阿哌沙班与华法林在 AF 患者中的疗效,我们分析了既往有瓣膜手术史的患者亚组(n = 251)。我们通过电话联系各研究中心以获取更多关于既往瓣膜手术的信息。156 例患者有完整的数据。主要疗效终点为卒中和全身性栓塞。主要安全性终点为大出血。使用 Cox 回归模型比较治疗组。
在 ARISTOTLE 中,104 例(0.6%)患者有生物瓣置换史(n = 73 [主动脉瓣],n = 26 [二尖瓣],n = 5 [二尖瓣和主动脉瓣])和 52 例(0.3%)有瓣膜修复史(n = 50 [二尖瓣],n = 2 [主动脉瓣])。在有生物瓣的患者中,55 例随机分配至阿哌沙班组,49 例随机分配至华法林组。在有原生瓣膜修复史的患者中,32 例随机分配至阿哌沙班组,20 例随机分配至华法林组。总体临床事件发生率较低,阿哌沙班与华法林在任何结局上均无显著差异。
在合并有生物瓣置换或修复的 AF 病史的患者中,阿哌沙班与华法林的安全性和疗效与 ARISTOTLE 的结果一致。这些数据表明,对于有生物瓣或既往瓣膜修复的患者,阿哌沙班可能是合理的选择,尽管仍需要未来更大规模的随机试验。临床试验.gov:NCT00412984。