Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement: An Umbrella Review

DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2025.16075

ALINA SAMI KHAN, MBBS,¹ ABDULLAH LNU, BSc, MBBS,² ZAIN UL ABIDEEN, MD,³ MUHAMMAD USMAN BAIG, MBBS,³ MUHAMMAD HUDAIB, MBBS,⁴ HAMMAD UR REHMAN, MBBS,⁵ NOREEN HAIDER, MBBS,⁶ SHAHZAIB KHALIQ, MBBS,⁶ SHIFA BATOOL,⁷ RIMSHA BINT-E-HINA, MBBS,⁸ NOOR MAHAL AZAM, MBBS,² SAHR SYED ASIF, DO,⁹ MAHIMA KHATRI, MD,¹⁰ and SATESH KUMAR, MD¹¹

¹Medical College, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan

²Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

³Quaid-e-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur, Pakistan

⁴Fazaia Ruth Pfau Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan

⁵Dow Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan

⁶King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan

⁷Hamdard College of Medicine and Dentistry, Karachi, Pakistan

⁸Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

⁹Kentucky College of Osteopathic Medicine, Pikeville, KY, USA

¹⁰Department of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

¹¹Department of Medicine, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan

Download PDF

Follow Us >> Tweet

ABSTRACT. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major sequela after bioprosthetic valve replacement (BPVR) in patients with valvular heart disease. This study evaluates the data compiled from different meta-analyses in an umbrella review. We investigated the anticoagulation efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and BPVR. A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and PubMed was completed to find papers published up until June 2024 that could be included in this umbrella review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective observational/cohort studies were primarily identified as the foundation of meta-analyses and peer-reviewed systematic reviews. The quality of the included publications was determined using the AMSTAR 2 tool and the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk-of-bias tool, while the overall certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. A total of 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs and observational studies were included in this umbrella review. Among the primary outcomes, the pooled analysis exhibited a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–1.00; P = .05; I² = 0%), risk of major/life-threatening bleeding (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66–0.82; P ≤ .00001; I² = 66%), and stroke/thromboembolism (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67–0.82; P = .00001; I² = 0%) in patients who were administered DOAC pharmacotherapy as compared to VKAs. The only primary outcome that demonstrated clinically insignificant results was all-cause stroke (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.79–1.04; P = .16; I² = 54%). Secondary outcomes such as intracranial bleeding, any bleeding, and minor or clinically insignificant bleeding all showed a significantly decreased risk in the DOAC group versus the VKA group. Only two outcomes revealed an increased risk of cardiovascular events and risk of ischemic stroke in patients who received DOACs; however, these outcomes were statistically insignificant. According to our analysis, DOACs exhibit a superior safety and efficacy profile to that of VKAs when it comes to treating patients with BPVR. DOACs do not require continuous monitoring; therefore, they could be an effective substitute for VKAs in these individuals.

KEYWORDS. Atrial fibrillation, bioprosthetic valve repair, direct oral anticoagulant, umbrella review, vitamin K antagonists.

The authors report no conflicts of interest for the published content. No funding information was provided. ORCID IDs: A.S.K., 0000-0003-2125-730X; F.A., 0009-0009-2860-1370; Z.U.A., 0009-0003-5987-9910; M.U.B., 0009-0002-4731-1028; M.H., 0009-0000-9040-3345; H.U.R., 0000-0001-7685-4369; S.B., 0009-0000-3681-934X; R.B., 0000-0001-9236-5784; N.M.A., 0009-0005-2332-0343; S.K., 0000-0001-7975-6297.
Manuscript received December 23, 2025. Final version accepted March 11, 2025.
Address correspondence to: Alina Sami Khan, MBBS, Medical College, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Falcon Complex, Malir Cantt, Karachi, Pakistan. Email: alina.khan28817@gmail.com.

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of cardiac rhythm disruption in adults.¹ The Global Burden of Disease study states that around 33.5 million people have been affected by AF worldwide, with 2.5%–3.5% of the population affected among various countries.² The factors that commonly lead to the development of AF are advancing age, arterial hypertension, obesity, diabetes mellitus, binge drinking, and stress.³ The randomized PARTNER 3 trial concluded that postoperative AF is invariably associated with surgical aortic valve replacement and increases the risk of stroke, hospital readmissions, and casualties.⁴ Valvular heart disease (VHD) patients are treated with valve implantation surgery. Every year, 280,000 people undergo valve substitute implantation, nearly half of whom undergo bioprosthetic valve replacement (BPVR) surgery.⁵ Here, we considered studies that investigated AF postoperatively in patients who had undergone replacement of left-sided heart valves.

BPVR decreases the chance of valve thrombosis as compared to mechanical valve replacement surgery but is associated with an increase in re-operations for structural valve damage.⁶ Many studies have been conducted on patients with AF and BPVR to determine the effect of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) like coumatetralyl, tioclomarol, phenprocoumon, and warfarin.⁷ The other regimens used for anticoagulation in patients with AF and BPVR are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) such as rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban.⁸ VKAs are associated with a narrow therapeutic window, food–drug interactions, and drug–drug interactions, and DOACs are relatively new modalities; many studies, such as those published in 2021 and 2023, have been conducted to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of these drugs in patients with AF and BPVR.^9,10 We included 20 studies in our umbrella review that have compared the anticoagulation safety and efficacy of VKAs/warfarin and DOACs among patients with AF and BPVR.

Our study provides an analysis comparing VKAs and DOACs in patients with AF and BPVR using a detailed umbrella review methodology. The umbrella review rigorously located and selected accessible study publications about the research project. The mainstay of focus of our umbrella review was to collect data from different study types, such as cohort studies, case–control studies, clinical trials, and time-series observational studies, which were included in the meta-analyses that we completed. This review compiles the statistically significant associations observed in the most recent published meta-analyses of the highest number of individual studies and populations and contributes to establishing an effective comparison between VKAs and DOACs in terms of decreasing the morbidity and mortality in patients with AF and BPVR.

Methodology

This umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.^11,12 Ethical approval was not required for this study as all data were obtained from publicly available online sources.

Literature search

A systematic search was performed across several key databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception until June 2024. The search strategy used comprehensive keywords and Medical Subject Headings to ensure the inclusion of all relevant studies. Search terms included words related to “factor Xa inhibitors,” “direct thrombin inhibitors,” “dabigatran,” “vitamin K antagonists,” “valve replacement,” and “atrial fibrillation.” The detailed search strategy used for different databases is summarized in Supplementary Table S1. The search was conducted independently by two researchers to avoid selection bias, with a third researcher consulted to resolve any discrepancies.

Supplementary Table S1: Search Strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies meeting the following criteria were included:

• SRMAs meeting predefined patient/problem, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria
• Studies with a population consisting of patients with AF who had undergone bioprosthetic valve (BPV) repair surgery
• Studies with DOACs as the intervention of interest and VKAs as the comparator
• Studies with outcomes of interest, including all-cause mortality, all-cause stroke, ischemic stroke, stroke/thromboembolism, major/life-threatening bleeding, any bleeding, minor bleeding, intracranial bleeding, systemic/clinical thromboembolism, and cardiovascular events/mortality

Separately, studies meeting the following criteria were excluded:

• Primary studies, conference abstracts, letters, editorials, and reviews not fitting the criteria for SRMAs
• Studies focusing on interventions unrelated to DOACs and those not comparing DOACs with VKAs
• Studies lacking relevant clinical outcomes or incomplete data
• Studies not covering the demographics of patients with AF and BPV repair
• Animal studies

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by two authors (A.S.K. and Z.U.A.), and data were subsequently entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). Extracted data consisted of publication details (title, authors, year, type of study), study characteristics (design, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of primary studies and patients, description of primary and secondary outcomes), effect measures (eg, risk ratios [RRs], hazard ratios, and odds ratios), and quality assessment methodology and results. Any discrepancies were resolved by having a discussion and consulting a third author.

Quality assessment

AMSTAR 2 was employed to assess the methodological quality of the SRMAs included in this umbrella review. This tool was designed to critically appraise the process of conducting systematic reviews and consists of 16 items covering various aspects of the review methodology. The methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using the tool by two independent researchers. AMSTAR 2 evaluates domains of methodological quality, with responses categorized as “yes,” “no,” “cannot answer,” or “partial yes,” and the overall quality is rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low.¹³ The Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was used to assess the quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the meta-analyses, examining bias sources across domains such as random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, missing data, and other biases.¹⁴

Separately, the methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS).¹⁵ This guideline evaluates three key areas: participants, comparability, and outcomes. Each study was scored based on these criteria, with a maximum possible score of 9 points. Articles scoring >7 points were deemed high quality, those with scores between 4 and 6 points were categorized as medium quality, and papers scoring between 0 and 3 points were considered low quality. The certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations from meta-analyses were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method.¹⁵ GRADE assigns an evidence quality rating (high, moderate, low, very low) based on factors such as RoB, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Initially, the rating given is “high”; however, if there is any discrepancy in the aforementioned factors, the rating is downgraded.¹⁶ Here, two researchers conducted the GRADE assessment independently, resolving any discrepancies through discussion.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses and power calculations were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 4 (Biostat Inc., Orlando, FL, USA) and Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane, London, UK). For categorical outcomes, effect sizes were recalculated as RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Mean differences were calculated for continuous data. Statistical significance was set at P ≤. 05 for two-sided tests. Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.¹⁷ Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify any study contributing significantly to heterogeneity. Egger’s regression asymmetry test was used to detect small-study effects, with P <.05 indicating such effects.¹⁸ Publication bias and “P-hacking” were assessed through funnel plot visualization and trim-and-fill analysis.¹⁹

Results

Study selection

Initially, 40 meta-analyses and systematic reviews were retrieved. Following the exclusion of duplicate entries and research articles that did not fit our inclusion criteria, an elaborate full-text screening was conducted. Consequently, 20 SRMAs^9,10,20–37 were selected for this study, encompassing data from 10 RCTs^38–47 and 19 observational studies.^48–66 A brief synopsis of the salient features of the included meta-analyses is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Study Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Risk of bias of included studies

Supplementary Table S2 illustrates the AMSTAR 2 methodological quality ratings for the 20 SRMAs that we included in our study. We graded 7 studies as high quality, 10 as low quality, and 3 as critically low quality. Supplementary Table S3 displays the results of the GRADE assessment revealing that our review exhibited a varying degree of certainty, ranging from low to moderate. The quality assessment of individual RCTs was done using the Cochrane RoB tool, which showed trials with high to low RoB, as shown in Supplementary Figure S1.

Supplementary Figure S1: Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment for individual randomized controlled trials.

Supplementary Table S2: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews—AMSTAR 2

Supplementary Table S3: Grade Assessment of the Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews Included

The NOS was used to assess the RoB in observational studies, which showed that nine non-randomized studies obtained good (8–9 points) scores on the NOS, depicting a reduced RoB. Only Duan et al. (2021)⁴⁹ demonstrated a high “RoB, receiving” a score of 6 points, while the rest of the studies showed a moderate RoB with a score of 7 points (Supplementary Table S4).

Supplementary Table S4: Quality Evaluation of 19 Observational Studies (Cohort Studies) via Newcastle–Ottawa Scale Assessment

Synthesis of results

Primary efficacy outcomes

The primary outcomes of interest analyzed in our review were all-cause mortality, major/life-threatening bleeding, all-cause stroke, and stroke/thromboembolism. Table 2 illustrates the quantitative analysis results of these primary outcomes.

Table 2: Summary of Quantitative Analysis and Heterogeneity Analysis of Primary Outcomes

All-cause mortality. This outcome was reported by 17 out of the 20 included meta-analysis studies. The pooled data revealed that patients who were administered DOACs demonstrated a reduced risk of death due to any cause as compared to those in the VKA/warfarin group; this outcome was statistically significant as depicted by the results (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91–1.00; P. 05). Additionally, the overall analysis yielded no heterogeneity (I² = 0%), as demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: All-cause mortality forest plot. A pooled analysis of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses revealed a marginal advantage for the direct oral anticoagulant group over vitamin K antagonist pharmaceutical therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; SE, standard error; IV, inverse variance; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.

Major/life-threatening bleeding. Seventeen studies included in our research reported life-threatening bleeding as a significant outcome. Participants in the DOAC group demonstrated a reduced risk of major or life-threatening bleeding compared to those receiving VKA/warfarin therapy. The pooled analysis yielded the data (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66–0.82) with a moderately high heterogeneity (I² = 66%). This outcome yielded a highly significant P value of <.00001, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Major or life-threatening bleeding forest plot. A cumulative analysis of 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses demonstrated a reduced risk of the event in the direct oral anticoagulant group compared to the vitamin K antagonist group in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; IV, inverse variance; SE, standard error; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.

All-cause stroke. Nine studies provided data on stroke that was attributable to any cause. The combined analysis revealed an RR (95% CI) of 0.9 (0.79–1.04) with only fairly elevated heterogeneity (I² = 54%). The results demonstrated in Figure 3 revealed that individuals recruited in the DOAC group experienced fewer instances of all-cause stroke compared to those in the VKA/warfarin group. However, this outcome was not statistically significant (P = .16).

Figure 3: All-cause stroke forest plot. A combined analysis of nine systematic reviews and meta-analyses exhibited a reduced risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement who received direct oral anticoagulant therapy compared to vitamin K antagonists. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; IV, inverse variance; SE, standard error; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.

Stroke/thromboembolism. Patients who were prescribed DOACs exhibited a lower incidence of thromboembolism/stroke in contrast to patients in the VKA/warfarin group. The result was documented in 10 out of the 20 included meta-analysis papers. A statistically significant P value of <.00001 was obtained from the data, as illustrated in Figure 4 (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67–0.82). Furthermore, there was no discernible heterogeneity in the data (I² = 0%).

Figure 4: Stroke or thromboembolism forest plot. A comprehensive analysis of 10 studies indicated a greater decrease in the incidence of stroke or thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Direct oral anticoagulant therapy was superior to vitamin K antagonist therapy. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; IV, inverse variance; SE, standard error; VKA, vitamin K antagonist.

Secondary safety outcomes

The secondary outcomes that were evaluated include intracranial bleeding, any bleeding, minor bleeding, systemic/clinical thromboembolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular event/mortality. Table 3 illustrates the quantitative analysis results of these secondary outcomes.

Table 3: Summary of Quantitative Analysis and Heterogeneity Analysis of Secondary Outcomes

Three bleeding events—namely, intracranial bleeding, any bleeding, and minor or clinically insignificant bleeding—were among the secondary outcomes of this umbrella review. Subjects enrolled in the DOAC group had a remarkably low incidence of these clinical events when compared to those administered VKAs/warfarin. Intracranial bleeding and bleeding due to any cause were reported by 8 out of the 20 enlisted studies; a combined analysis of the data concluded that both outcomes were statistically significant, with substantially low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). Minor bleeding due to any clinical reason was reported by three studies; however, the results of the statistical analysis were not significant.

In patients with AF and BPV repair, the incidence of systemic or clinical thromboembolism was assessed to determine the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus VKAs/warfarin. The result was derived from an analysis of three studies. The pooled data demonstrated that participants receiving DOAC pharmacotherapy exhibited a reduced risk of systemic or clinical thromboembolism in comparison to those receiving VKAs. However, this reduction was not statistically significant. Despite the high heterogeneity observed (I² = 70%), it remained below the 75% threshold; therefore, sensitivity analysis was not performed.

Four and six research papers investigated death due to cardiovascular events and ischemic stroke, respectively. The DOAC group had a comparatively higher incidence of ischemic stroke compared to the VKA/warfarin group; nonetheless, statistical analysis concluded that the results were not statistically significant (P = .62). In contrast, the DOAC group was subjected to fewer cardiovascular events or deaths in comparison to the VKA/warfarin group. As shown in Table 3, the data analysis, however, indicated that these results were not clinically significant.

P-hacking, publication bias, and small-study effect

The lack of evidence for P-hacking in our research suggests that the findings were not manipulated to achieve a specific outcome. Importantly, our evaluation of publication bias consisted of multiple outcomes, as each was reported by at least two studies. While evaluating the safety and efficacy of DOACs as compared to VKAs in patients with BPVR, we performed a comprehensive analysis using a funnel plot. Our findings revealed that the funnel plot exhibited a symmetrical distribution of data points. The observed symmetry in the data implies the absence of publication bias, as demonstrated in Supplementary Figure S2. We also assessed small-study effects using Egger’s regression asymmetry test.

Supplementary Figure S2: A: All-cause mortality funnel plot. B: Major/life-threatening bleeding funnel plot. C: All-cause stroke funnel plot. D: Stroke or thromboembolism funnel plot. Abbreviations: RR, risk ratio; SE, standard error.

The findings of our investigation are illustrated in Supplementary Table S5, suggesting a lack of small-study effects.

Supplementary Table S5: Egger’s Regression Test

Discussion

Cardiovascular abnormalities and new-onset AF after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are common in older patients, contributing to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and mortality.⁶⁷ Bleeding events pose significant challenges in clinical antithrombotic therapy; clinicians often follow DOAC guidelines for surgical bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) patients despite differences in hemodynamic effects and structures between transcatheter and surgical BHVs.⁶⁸ Surgical BHVs have metal stents covered with fabric for support, while TAVR devices have exposed stents.⁶⁹ These differences may impact thrombogenicity and endothelialization patterns. Surgical and transcatheter valve leaflet thrombosis, characterized by hypoattenuating leaflet thickening (HALT) or subclinical leaflet thrombosis (SLT), has been reported. SLT post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) ranges from 15%–30%, potentially leading to cerebrovascular events. In the Anti-thrombotic Strategy After Trans-aortic Valve Implantation for Aortic Stenosis (ATLANTIS) study, apixaban-treated patients had a lower incidence of HALT compared to those on VKAs with antiplatelet therapy.⁴² After BHV implantation, a critical 3-month prothrombotic period is required for re-endothelialization. The thromboembolic risk is highest in the first 10 days postoperatively, decreasing significantly thereafter. VKAs are preferred during this period. There is conflicting evidence concerning the use of oral anticoagulants during the initial 3 months of treatment post-BHV implantation, particularly in patients without baseline indications (AF) for anticoagulation.^70,71

The 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommended dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 months post-TAVI, followed by lifelong aspirin, and VKAs for 3 months in patients with BPV.⁷² The European Heart Rhythm Association permits DOACs in patients with AF and BPV for >3 months postoperatively.⁷³ All these data suggest promising results for DOACs in patients with AF and BPV, but further research is needed to evaluate their effectiveness and safety in patients with mechanical heart valves and severe mitral stenosis (MS). Conversely, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society suggests DOACs plus aspirin for AF patients post-TAVI, unless contraindicated. On the contrary, another study discouraged DOACs for mechanical prosthetic valves due to increased thrombotic and bleeding events.³⁹ Current guidelines suggest prescribing DOACs over VKAs for AF patients with aortic stenosis.^42,43,71 However, the optimal approach for TAVR patients remains debated. The ACC/AHA 2020 guidelines recommend VKAs for TAVR patients with AF within 3 months of BPV implantation.⁷⁴ On the contrary, recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines suggest that DOACs might be preferable to VKAs for AF patients after surgical BHV implantation in the mitral position, but this is a weak recommendation due to limited evidence.⁷¹

In our umbrella review, we comprehensively assessed 20 SRMAs consisting of 19 observational studies and 10 RCTs encompassing 238,408 patients with AF undergoing BPVR/repair, TAVI, TAVR, and other VHDs. All studies compared DOACs with VKAs. The outcomes included all-cause stroke, bleeding risks, intracranial hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events (TEs), cardiovascular events/mortality, stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), systemic thromboembolism, and deep vein thrombosis. Compared to the warfarin group, patients in the DOAC group were generally healthier and had fewer bleeding risk factors.

Our analysis of 17 out of 20 SRMAs compared the effectiveness of DOACs versus VKAs, focusing on all-cause mortality and major bleeding events as the primary outcomes. The results showed a trend favoring DOACs for reduced all-cause mortality.^{9,10,20–31,33,36,37} Some studies suggested comparable or superior outcomes for DOACs in reducing all-cause mortality and major bleeding compared to VKAs. Cao et al.³³ suggested that differences in outcome definitions, evaluation instruments, prior treatment interactions, and unmeasured confounders might contribute to these inconsistencies. Elderly patients receiving BPVR often have high cardiovascular risk factors, increasing the likelihood of bleeding and thromboembolism during anticoagulant therapy. AF further exacerbates thromboembolic risks in patients with BPV.⁷⁵ Data from 17 SRMAs indicated that DOACs significantly reduced the risk of major/life-threatening bleeding compared to VKAs.^{9,10,20–30,32–37} Studies by Gerfer et al.,³⁵ Yokoyama et al.,²⁹ and Adhikari et al.³⁰ also found a significant reduction in major bleeding risk with DOACs. However, findings from RCTs using DOACs for AF patients with BHV were inconsistent with observational studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with follow-ups lasting >24 months had reduced risks of major bleeding and SSE with DOACs, supporting their long-term use in AF patients with BHV.

Lacy et al.⁹ concluded that DOACs are better than VKAs in reducing the risk of significant bleeding in AF patients who have undergone BPVR. A meta-analysis involving 6405 individuals with BHV and AF found that DOACs could reduce the risk of major bleeding by 34% compared to VKAs, consistent with findings reported by Li et al.²⁰ and Ruzieh et al.²³ Despite higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores in the DOAC group, Lee et al.¹⁰ found fewer significant bleeding incidents in AF patients with TAVR when using DOACs versus VKAs. Bitar et al.³² also reported a reduced overall risk of severe bleeding in the DOAC group compared to the VKA group. Yan et al.²⁸ and Ueyama et al.²⁷ reported no significant difference in the risk of major bleeding between DOACs and VKAs, consistent with reports by Oliveri et al.²² and Selvaraj et al.²⁴ Previous SRMAs have demonstrated that DOACs, exhibiting a reduced correlation with severe bleeding, are as effective as warfarin in lowering the risk of TEs in AF-associated VHD.^76–78 RCTs examining the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in non-valvular AF have consistently shown reduced bleeding rates compared to VKAs.^79–82 Significant bleeding complications after TAVI are associated with a higher risk of death. Therefore, the decreased bleeding profile of DOACs may be advantageous in this population. Factors such as heterogeneity in the antiplatelet regimen, a possible over-therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) in the VKA group, and allocation bias due to a lack of randomization could account for the observed discordance in major/life-threatening bleeding events.

A pooled analysis of 10 SRMAs revealed that DOAC use carried a significantly reduced risk of “stroke/thromboembolism” compared to VKAs.^{21,23,25,29,30,32–36} Similarly, Lacy et al.⁹ and Li et al.²⁰ suggested that DOACs are superior to VKAs in reducing the risk of stroke, whereas Li et al.²⁰ highlighted that DOACs may be more effective for individuals <75 years of age. Despite a higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score in the DOAC group, Lee et al.¹⁰ demonstrated similar risks for thrombosis in both groups of patients. Conversely, Yan et al.²⁸ and Oliveri et al.²² reported no significant difference in stroke risk between DOACs and VKAs. Additionally, Adhikari et al.³⁰ similarly found no significant difference in stroke and systemic embolism incidence between DOACs and warfarin in AF patients with BPV. Tanawuttiwat et al.⁵⁷ conducted the largest observational trial, which demonstrated that DOACs were associated with stroke outcomes comparable to VKAs, despite their increasing prevalence over time. However, guidelines suggest aspirin monotherapy or 3–6 months of VKA following BPV implantation due to the extremely low thrombosis risk in these recipients. Yokoyama et al.²⁹ found that DOACs have better safety outcomes than VKAs in patients with AF while being equally effective in preventing valve thrombosis and intracardiac thrombus. DOAC therapy is preferable for patients with a BPV and AF because it does not require INR monitoring and is less affected by food or concurrent medication than VKAs.^74,83 As the prevalence of AF and heart valve disease increases with age, clinicians are likely to encounter more patients with these conditions. Therefore, larger RCTs comparing DOAC and VKA therapy for patients with an INR of 2–2.5 could help balance safety and efficacy.

Data from eight SRMAs depicted that the DOAC group encountered a significantly reduced risk of “any bleeding” compared to VKAs.^{20,23–26,31,33,36} In contrast, Li et al.²⁰ and Selvaraj et al.²⁴ suggested that DOACs were associated with a decreased risk of any bleeding compared to VKAs. Thirty-three of the included studies^30,31,34 showed a reduced risk of “minor bleeding” in the DOAC group compared to the VKA group; however, their results were statistically insignificant, consistent with the study by Oliveri et al.²² Six SRMAs indicated that the DOAC group exhibited fewer “cardiovascular events/mortality” compared to the VKA group, with statistically insignificant findings.^{22,23,26,28,33,35} Gerfer et al.³⁵ found no increased risk in patients receiving DOACs after heart valve surgery and AF. Pooled efficacy and safety analyses revealed a statistically insignificant reduction in risk within the DOAC group. Ruzieh et al.²³ and Yan et al.²⁸ reported similar cardiovascular death rates. The incidence of ischemic stroke was reported in four SRMAs with VKAs slightly more efficacious than DOACs, with no significant statistical difference.^20,23,26,33 Li et al.²⁰ indicated that DOACs are better than VKAs in preventing ischemic stroke in patients <75 years of age. Lee et al.¹⁰ demonstrated comparable ischemic stroke risks in both groups of AF patients undergoing TAVR, despite higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores in the DOAC group. A pooled analysis of three SRMAs in our review showed that the use of DOACs reduced the risk of “systemic/clinical thromboembolism” compared to the VKAs.^10,25,26 However, the results were statistically insignificant. In Gerfer et al.,³⁵ patients with BPVs and AF had comparable outcome rates for cardiovascular or TEs between DOACs and VKAs.

The AMSTAR 2 methodological assessment of included SRMAs revealed that 10 were of “low” quality and 3 were of “critically low” quality. This highlights the necessity of robust methodological quality to derive reliable quantitative results from meta-analyses. Many studies lacked protocol registration for SRMAs and the use of RoB assessment techniques, lowering the quality and reliability of the meta-analysis results.

Several new studies are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs in specific populations. A recent study in Hong Kong compared warfarin and dabigatran in preventing thromboembolism in AF patients with moderate-to-severe MS and concluded that DOACs demonstrate greater efficacy.⁸⁴ Furthermore, an ongoing clinical trial in Korea is investigating the long-term use of oral factor Xa inhibitors compared to VKAs following mechanical aortic valve replacement.⁸⁵ However, the safety and efficacy of DOACs as an alternative to warfarin in patients with AF and moderate or severe MS remains uncertain due to the absence of clinical trial data.

Limitations

First, center variability and the lack of a centralized evaluation of procedural outcomes likely impacted the included studies. The inclusion of different valve types and varying antiplatelet medication regimens limits the generalizability of aggregate data. Additionally, the lack of large double-blind RCTs comparing DOACs with VKAs in patients with AF and BHVs complicates the determination of the best antithrombotic regimen. Most studies exhibited selection bias, were observational cohorts, and lacked baseline characteristics. Varying antiplatelet treatment percentages and the absence of data on the VKA group’s therapeutic INR range during follow-up further impacted outcomes. Moreover, follow-up times varied across studies. Finally, there is no standardized scoring system to assess bleeding and ischemic stroke risks in patients with BPVs.^86,87

Conclusion

This umbrella review concluded that DOACs exhibit a superior safety and efficacy profile than VKAs, when it comes to treating patients requiring anticoagulation therapy during BPV repair. DOACs do not require continuous monitoring; therefore, they could be a viable alternative to VKAs in these individuals. However, further research is needed to elucidate specific distinctions among individual medications (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban).

References

1. Steinberg BA, Piccini JP. Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. BMJ. 2014;348:g2116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Sagris M, Vardas EP, Theofilis P, Antonopoulos AS, Oikonomou E, Tousoulis D. Atrial fibrillation: pathogenesis, predisposing factors, and genetics. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;23(1):6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Brundel BJJM, Ai X, Hills MT, Kuipers MF, Lip GYH, de Groot NMS. Atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Shahim B, Malaisrie SC, George I, et al. Postoperative atrial fibrillation or flutter following transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement: PARTNER 3 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(14):1565–1574. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Kidane AG, Burriesci G, Cornejo P, et al. Current developments and future prospects for heart valve replacement therapy. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;88(1):290–303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2183–2191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Thourani VH, Gunter RL, Hurst S, et al. Postoperative warfarin following mitral valve repair or bioprosthetic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22(5):716–723.[PubMed]
8. Moser N, Omar MA, Koshman SL, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation in early postoperative valve repair or bioprosthetic replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;168(2):523–532.e3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Lacy SC, Saint Croix GR, Porter K, Latib A, Beohar N. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;98(7):E1007–E1016. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Lee WC, Shih JY, Fang HY, et al. Comparing vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2023;29:10760296231158585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Lo CKL, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:45. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–926. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Grant J, Hunter A. Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J Intell Inf Syst. 2006;27(2):159–184. [CrossRef]
18. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(2):534–547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Li D, Chang P, Zhang H, Bai F, Wu Q. 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. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;79(4):461–471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Guardia Martínez P, Avilés Toscano AL, Martínez Mayoral MA, Moltó Miralles J. DOAC versus VKA in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2023;76(9):690–699. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Oliveri F, Montalto C, Tua L, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists after TAVR: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2022;365:123–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Ruzieh M, Wolbrette DL, Naccarelli GV. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves – a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2021;12(12):4797–4805. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Selvaraj V, Khan MS, Mufarrih SH, et al. Meta-analysis assessing efficacy and safety of vitamin K antagonists versus direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2023;201:260–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Shaikh S, Mohamed MMG, Osman M, Kheiri B. Meta-analysis comparing direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Am J Cardiol. 2022;169:148–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Tang L-L, Liang S-W, Shi H-L, Ye J-J. Comparison of outcomes of direct-acting oral anticoagulants vs. vitamin K antagonists in patients with bioprosthetic heart valves or valve repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021;25(15):5006–5017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Ueyama H, Kuno T, Ando T, et al. Meta-analysis comparing direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125(7):1102–1107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Yan J, Liu M, Zhang Y, Yang D, An F. Comparison of efficacy and safety between VKAs and DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2022;45(10):1002–1010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Yokoyama Y, Briasoulis A, Ueyama H, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves: a meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;165(6):2052–2059.e4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Adhikari G, Baral N, Rauniyar R, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis: can we compare direct oral anticoagulants to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and bio-prosthetic valves? Cureus. 2021;13(4):e14651. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Bakr L, Elsayed A, Saleh O, Abdalraouf M, Ng GA, Ibrahim M. Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in bioprosthetic valves: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1099591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Bitar YSL, Duraes AR, Roever L, Gomes Neto M, Lins-Kusterer L, Bocchi EA. Comparison of the direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:712585. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Cao Y, Zheng Y, Li S, et al. An updated meta-analysis of DOACs vs. VKAs in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic heart valve. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:899906. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Galliazzo S, Pelitti V, Campiotti L, Poli D, Squizzato A. Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with a left-sided bioprosthetic heart valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intern Emerg Med. 2023;18(2):535–547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Gerfer S, Djordjevic I, Eghbalzadeh K, Mader N, Wahlers T, Kuhn E. Direct oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation and heart valve surgery-a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;16:17539447221093964. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Kheiri B, Przybylowicz R, Simpson TF, et al. Meta-analysis of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves. Am J Cardiol. 2021;142:140–141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Khodadadiyan A, Jazi K, Bazrafshan Drissi H, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists: which one is more effective in atrial fibrillation. Perfusion. 2024;39(7):1286–1294. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Guimarães HP, Lopes RD, de Barros e Silva PGM, et al. Rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(22):2117–2126. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Brueckmann M, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(13):1206–1214. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Carnicelli AP, De Caterina R, Halperin JL, et al. Edoxaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves. Circulation. 2017;135(13):1273–1275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Durães AR, de Souza Roriz P, de Almeida Nunes B, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin after bioprosthesis valve replacement for the management of atrial fibrillation postoperatively: DAWA Pilot Study. Drugs R D. 2016;16(2):149–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Collet JP, Van Belle E, Thiele H, et al. Apixaban vs. standard of care after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the ATLANTIS trial. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(29):2783–2797. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Van Mieghem NM, Unverdorben M, Hengstenberg C, et al. Edoxaban versus vitamin K antagonist for atrial fibrillation after TAVR. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(23):2150–2160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Piepiorka-Broniecka M, Michalski TA, Figatowski T, et al. NOAC versus warfarin in the treatment of atrial fibrillation during the first three months after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Cardiol J. 2022;29(2):355–357. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Shim CY, Seo J, Kim YJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of edoxaban in patients early after surgical bioprosthetic valve implantation or valve repair: a randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;165(1):58–67.e4. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Breithardt G, Baumgartner H, Berkowitz SD, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation but underlying native mitral and aortic valve disease participating in the ROCKET AF trial. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(47):3377–3385. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Guimarães PO, Pokorney SD, Lopes RD, et al. Efficacy and safety of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and prior bioprosthetic valve replacement or valve repair: insights from the ARISTOTLE trial. Clin Cardiol. 2019;42(5):568–571. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Russo V, Carbone A, Attena E, et al. Clinical benefit of direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic heart valves. Clin Ther. 2019;41(12):2549–2557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Duan L, Doctor JN, Adams JL, et al. Comparison of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic heart valves. Am J Cardiol. 2021;146:22–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Jochheim D, Barbanti M, Capretti G, et al. Oral anticoagulant type and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(16):1566–1576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Kalogeras K, Jabbour RJ, Ruparelia N, et al. Comparison of warfarin versus DOACs in patients with concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation undergoing TAVI; results from the ATLAS registry. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2020;50(1):82–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Pasciolla S, Zizza LF, Le T, Wright K. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin after bioprosthetic valve replacements. Clin Drug Investig. 2020;40(9):839–845. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Seeger J, Gonska B, Rodewald C, Rottbauer W, Wöhrle J. Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation after transfemoral aortic valve replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(1):66–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Di Biase L, Romero J, Briceno D, et al. Periprocedural and long-term safety and feasibility of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with biological valve undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a prospective multicenter study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2021;61(3):617–622. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Kawashima H, Watanabe Y, Hioki H, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation after TAVR. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(22):2587–2597. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Mangner N, Crusius L, Haussig S, et al. Continued versus interrupted oral anticoagulation during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation and impact of postoperative anticoagulant management on outcome in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(7):1134–1141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Tanawuttiwat T, Stebbins A, Marquis-Gravel G, Vemulapalli S, Kosinski AS, Cheng A. Use of direct oral anticoagulant and outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the STS/ACC TVT Registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(1):e023561. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Didier R, Lhermusier T, Auffret V, et al. TAVR patients requiring anticoagulation: direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(15):1704–1713. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Mannacio VA, Mannacio L, Antignano A, et al. New oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation after early postoperative period in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113(1):75–82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Myllykangas ME, Kiviniemi TO, Gunn JM, et al. Anticoagulation therapy after biologic aortic valve replacement. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:698784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Strange JE, Sindet-Pedersen C, Staerk L, et al. All-cause mortality, stroke, and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7(FI1):f93–f100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Izumi C, Eishi K, Ashihara K, et al. JCS/JSCS/JATS/JSVS 2020 guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. Circ J. 2020;84(11):2037–2119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Izumi C, Miyake M, Fujita T, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves – real-world data from the multicenter, prospective, observational BPV-AF Registry. Circ J. 2022;86(3):440–448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Kosmidou I, Liu Y, Alu MC, et al. Antithrombotic therapy and cardiovascular outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with atrial fibrillation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(16):1580–1589. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Butt JH, De Backer O, Olesen JB, et al. Vitamin K antagonists versus direct oral anticoagulants after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021;7(1):11–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Geis NA, Kiriakou C, Chorianopoulos E, Uhlmann L, Katus HA, Bekeredjian R. NOAC monotherapy in patients with concomitant indications for oral anticoagulation undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018;107(9):799–806. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Biviano AB, Nazif T, Dizon J, et al. Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(1):e002766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Guedeney P, Mehran R, Collet JP, Claessen BE, Ten Berg J, Dangas GD. Antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(1):e007411 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
69. Mangieri A, Montalto C, Poletti E, et al. Thrombotic versus bleeding risk after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(16):2088–2101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Heras M, Chesebro JH, Fuster V, et al. High risk of thromboemboli early after bioprosthetic cardiac valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(5):1111–1119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159–e1195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Heidbuchel H, Verhamme P, Alings M, et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2015;17(10):1467–1507. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e35–e71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. You JJ, Singer DE, Howard PA, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e531S–e575S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Caldeira D, David C, Costa J, Ferreira JJ, Pinto FJ. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2018;4(2):111–118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Pan K-L, Singer DE, Ovbiagele B, Wu Y-L, Ahmed MA, Lee M. Effects of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(7):e005835. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Hicks T, Stewart F, Eisinga A. NOACs versus warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2016;3(1):e000279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981–992. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):883–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093–2104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139–1151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Mori M, Gan G, Bin Mahmood SU, et al. Variations in anticoagulation practice following bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valve replacement and repair. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(20):2412–2413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Zhou M, Chan EW, Hai JJ, et al. Protocol, rationale and design of DAbigatran for Stroke PreVention In Atrial Fibrillation in MoDerate or Severe Mitral Stenosis (DAVID-MS): a randomised, open-label study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e038194. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Kim JB. Long-term anticoagulation with oral factor Xa inhibitor versus vitamin K antagonist after mechanical aortic valve replacement. Case Med Res. 2020:18–21.
86. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(1):104–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(3):213–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]