Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with prosthetic heart valves (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 2011
Patients with prosthetic heart valves require chronic oral anticoagulation. In this clinical scenario, physicians must be mindful of the thromboembolic and bleeding risks related to chronic anticoagulant therapy. Currently, only vitamin K antagonists are approved for this indication. This paper reviews the main heart valve guidelines focusing on the use of oral anticoagulation in these patients.
Postgraduate Medical Journal, 1995
Prosthetic valve thrombogenicity and bleeding complications associated with lifelong anticoagulation are constant potential causes of morbidity and mortality following prosthetic valve implantation. The conflict between over-and under-anticoagulation is even more of a problem when other surgical interventions are required. Very few clinical trials have addressed this issue. We propose some guidelines based on the concept of risk-adjusted intensity of anticoagulation but stress the need for caution with intepretation of these recommendations.
How Did We Get Here? Antithrombotic Therapy after Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review
Thrombosis and Haemostasis
Importance Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease, and more than 90% of patients who undergo aortic valve replacement receive a bioprosthetic valve. Yet optimal antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement remains uncertain, and guidelines provide contradictory recommendations. Observations Randomized studies of antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement are small and underpowered. Observational data present opposing, and likely confounded, results. Historically, changes to guidelines have not been informed by high-quality new data. Current guidelines from different professional bodies provide contradictory recommendations despite citing the same evidence. Conclusion Insufficient antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement has serious implications: ischemic stroke, systemic arterial thromboembolism, and clinical and subclinical valve thromboses. Unnecessarily intense antithrombotic therapy, however,...
British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2000
There is wide variation in the management of patients with mechanical prosthetic valves who are taking anticoagulants and who require non-cardiac surgery. In this paper, we outline a pragmatic, practical approach to the adjustment of anticoagulation in relation to both the degrees of surgical trauma during oral and maxillofacial surgery and the risk of thromboembolism associated with the prosthetic valve. For minor surgery, no adjustment of anticoagulation is undertaken if the International Normalized Ratio is less than 4.0, if local haemostatic methods and tranexamic acid mouthwashes are used. For major surgery, warfarin is stopped preoperatively and low-molecular-weight heparin is used. For emergency surgery, partial reversal of anticoagulation with low-dose parenteral vitamin K is obtained.
Nonusefulness of Antithrombotic Therapy After Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement
The American Journal of Cardiology, 2020
Controversy persists regarding the advisability of anticoagulation for the early period after biological surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aim to examine the impact of various antithrombotic regimens on outcomes in a large cohort of biological AVR patients. Records of 1,111 consecutive adult patients who underwent surgical biological AVR at our institution between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. Outcomes included stroke, bleeding, and death at 3 and 12 months. Treatment regimens included (1) no therapy, (2) anticoagulants (warfarin or Factor Xa inhibitors), (2) antiplateles (various), and (4) anticoagulants + antiplatelets. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to track outcomes, and Coxproportional hazards regression models were conducted to analyze effects of different therapies on adverse events. At 3 months, thromboembolic events were low and not significantly different between the no therapy group (2.2%) and anticoagulation (2.8%) or anticoagulation + antiplatelet (3.6%) or all groups (3.7%). The antiplatelet group was just significantly lower, at 2.2%. However, this was driven by non-stroke cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease. The incidence of death at 3 months was low and not significantly different between all groups. At 12 months, there were no thromboembolic benefits between groups, but bleeding events were significantly higher in the anticoagulation group (no therapy (1.4%), anticoagulation (8.4%), antiplatelet (4.5%), anticoagulation + antiplatelet (7.9%)). In conclusion, none of the antithrombotic regimens showed benefits in stroke or survival at 3 or 12 months after biological AVR. Anticoagulation increased bleeding events. Routine anticoagulation after biological AVR appears to be unnecessary and potentially harmful.