The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with left-sided bioprosthetic heart valves and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of patients with left-sided bioprosthetic heart valves (BHV) and atrial fibrillation (AF) remain controversial. This study aims to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in this region.

METHODS

We retrieved all relevant randomized controlled studies and observational cohort studies, which critically assessed the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs among patients with left-sided BHV and AF in databases of PubMed, Cochrane, ISI Web of Sciences, and Embase. The efficacy outcomes of this meta-analysis were stroke events and all-cause death when the safety outcomes included major and any bleeding.

RESULTS

The analysis integrated 13 studies while enrolling 27,793 patients with AF and left-sided BHV. DOACs reduced the rate of stroke by 33% compared with VKAs (risk ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.91), with no increased incidence of all-cause death (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.12). For safety outcomes, major bleeding was reduced by 28% using DOACs rather than VKAs (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.52-0.99), while there was no difference in the events of any bleeding (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.68-1.03). In addition, in patients younger than 75 years old, the stroke rate was reduced by 45% in the population using DOACs (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.84).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that in patients with AF and BHV, compared with VKAs, using DOACs was associated with reduced stroke and major bleeding events without an increase of all-cause mortality and any bleeding. In the population younger than 75 years old, DOAC might be more effective in preventing cardiogenic stroke.