Efficacy and outcomes of antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Autor:	Goyal A; Department of Internal Medicine, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India., Abbasi FQ; Federal Medical College., Tariq MD; Foundation University Medical College, Islamabad., Kanagala SG; Department of Internal Medicine, Metropolitan Hospital Center, New York, NY., Changez MIK; Department of Surgery, Quetta Institute of Medical Sciences, Quetta., Safi D; Department of Internal Medicine, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India., Basit J; Department of Internal Medicine, Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi., Sulaiman SA; Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan., Marsool MDM; Department of Internal Medicine, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq., Daoud M; Department of Internal Medicine, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine., Sohail AH; Department of Surgery, University of New Mexico Health Sciences, Albuqurque, NM.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) [Ann Med Surg (Lond)] 2024 Mar 15; Vol. 86 (5), pp. 2911-2925. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Mar 15 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.1097/MS9.0000000000001908
Abstrakt:	Background: Recent guidelines suggest that antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the standard of care in the absence of long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) indications in patients post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The superiority of one method over the other remains controversial. Materials and Methods: Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P =0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P =0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P =0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P =0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P =0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P =0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P =0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P =0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P =0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P =0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P =0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002]. Conclusions: Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups. Competing Interests: The author declares no conflicts of interest.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article. (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu