Decision-Making in Clinical Practice: Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and a Single Additional Stroke Risk Factor

Approximately 1 in 3–4 patients presenting with an ischemic stroke will also have atrial fibrillation (AF), and AF-related strokes can be effectively prevented using oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC), either with well-controlled vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). In addition, OAC use (both VKAs and NOACs) is associated with a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (VKAs) or an additional 10% mortality reduction with NOACs relative to VKAs. The decision to use OAC in individual AF patient is based on the estimated balance of the benefit from ischemic stroke reduction against the risk of major OAC-related bleeding [essentially intracranial hemorrhage (ICH)]. Better appreciation of the importance of VKAs’ anticoagulation quality [a target time in therapeutic range (TTR) of ≥70%] and the availability of NOACs (which offer better safety compared to VKAs) have decreased the estimated threshold for OAC treatment in AF patients towards lower stroke risk levels. Still, contemporary registry-based data show that OAC is often underused in AF patients at increased risk of stroke. The uncertainty whether to use OAC may be particularly pronounced in AF patients with a single additional stroke risk factor, who are often (mis)perceived as having a “borderline” or insufficient stroke risk to trigger the use of OAC. However, observational data from real-world AF cohorts show that the annual stroke rates in such patients are higher than in patients with no additional stroke risk factors, and OAC use has been associated with reduction in stroke, systemic embolism, or death in comparison to no therapy or aspirin, with no increase in the risk of bleeding relative to aspirin. In this review article, we summarize the basic principles of stroke risk stratification in AF patients and discuss contemporary real-world evidence on OAC use and outcomes of OAC treatment in AF patients with a single additional stroke risk factor in various real-world AF cohorts.     

Composite end point analyses of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Objective: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been proposed as alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy and safety of NOACs compared with warfarin with composite end points in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: This semi-systematic review performed a study of Phase III randomized controlled trials comparing NOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patient with atrial fibrillation using composite end points (combination of various clinical events). The use of composite end points allowed for combining efficacy and safety outcomes, thereby comparing the differences between NOAC and warfarin therapy from a clinical perspective. Results: Treatment with NOAC compared with warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in the sum of stroke or non-CNS, systemic embolism and major bleeding (odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82–0.91). Conclusion: Generally, NOACs were associated with a more favorable efficacy and safety profile compared with warfarin with regard to composite end points.     

Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Special Populations with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with normal sinus rhythm. These strokes may efficiently be prevented in patients with risk factors using oral anticoagulant therapy, with either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (i.e., direct thrombin inhibitors or direct factor Xa inhibitors). Owing to their specific risk profiles, some AF populations may have increased risks of both thromboembolic and bleeding events. These AF patients may be denied oral anticoagulants, whilst evidence shows that the absolute benefits of oral anticoagulants are greatest in patients at highest risk. NOACs are an alternative to VKAs to prevent stroke in patients with “non-valvular AF”, and NOACs may offer a greater net clinical benefit compared with VKAs, particularly in these high-risk patients. Physicians have to learn how to use these drugs optimally in specific settings. We review concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers are currently proposed for use of NOACs based on available evidence for patients with kidney disease, elderly patients, women, patients with diabetes, patients with low or high body weight, and those with valve disease.     

Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological Treatments for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant risk of stroke and other thromboembolic events, which can be effectively prevented using oral anticoagulation (OAC) with either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban. Until recently, VKAs were the only available means for OAC treatment. NOACs had similar efficacy and were safer than or as safe as warfarin with respect to reduced rates of hemorrhagic stroke or other intracranial bleeding in the respective pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of stroke prevention in non-valvular AF patients. Increasing “real-world” evidence on NOACs broadly confirms the results of the RCTs. However, individual patient characteristics including renal function, age, or prior bleeding should be taken into account when choosing the OAC with best risk–benefit profile. In patients ineligible for OACs, surgical or interventional stroke prevention strategies should be considered. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery for other reasons, the left atrial appendage excision, ligation, or amputation may be the best option. Importantly, residual stumps or insufficient ligation may result in even higher stroke risk than without intervention. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion, although requiring minimally invasive access, failed to demonstrate reduced ischemic stroke events compared to warfarin. In this review article, we summarize current treatment options and discuss the strengths and major limitations of the therapies for stroke risk reduction in patients with AF.     

Fitting the right non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant to the right patient with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: an evidence-based choice

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (IS) and systemic embolism (SE). Stroke prevention is a key element for the overall management of AF patients. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), such as dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, are at least as effective as warfarin in reducing IS/SE with a lower rate of major bleeding. Various analyses from the large Phase III randomized trials demonstrated different efficacy and safety of NOACs in specific subgroups of patients. The randomized trials are supplemented by effectiveness and safety data from real-world observational cohorts following the availability of these drugs for use in everyday clinical practice. Given the clinical heterogeneity of AF patients, the available data from trials and real-world studies allow us to fit the right NOAC to the particular patient’s characteristics, with the aim of optimizing outcomes for the individual patient. This review article aims to provide a summary of the evidence on the performance of NOACs in AF patients with specific clinical characteristics. Evidence-based suggestions are presented to provide a simple and viable strategy for clinicians for the choice of a particular NOAC.

• KEY MESSAGE

• Given the different performance of the new-oral anticoagulants in patients with the different clinical situation, evidence-based choice of fitting the right new-oral anticoagulants to the patients is provided in this review article.

     

Novel Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Focus on Apixaban

Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been challenging over decades, mostly due to a number of difficulties associated with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), which have been the most effective stroke prevention treatment for a long time. The oral direct thrombin inhibitors (e.g., dabigatran) and oral direct inhibitors of factor Xa (e.g., rivaroxaban, apixaban) have emerged recently as an alternative to VKAs for stroke prevention in AF. These drugs act rapidly, and have a predictable and stable dose-related anticoagulant effect with a few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. The novel oral anticoagulants are used in fixed doses with no need for regular laboratory monitoring of anticoagulation intensity. However, each of these drugs has distinct pharmacological properties that could influence optimal use in clinical practice. The following phase 3 randomized trials with novel oral anticoagulants versus warfarin for stroke prevention in AF have been completed: the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulant therapy (RE-LY) trial with dabigatran, the Rivaroxaban Once daily oral direct Factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF) trial with rivaroxaban, and the Apixaban for Reduction of Stroke and Other Thromboembolism Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial with apixaban. Moreover, the Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid to prevent Strokes (AVERROES) trial included patients with AF who have failed or were unsuitable for warfarin, and compared apixaban versus aspirin for stroke prevention in AF. Overall, apixaban has two large trials for stroke prevention in AF showing benefits not only over warfarin, but also over aspirin among those patients who have failed or refused warfarin. In the ARISTOTLE trial, apixaban was superior to warfarin in the reduction of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality, with a similar reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke and better tolerability. When compared with aspirin in the AVERROES trial, apixaban was associated with more effective reduction of stroke, a similar risk of major bleeding, and better tolerability. In this review article, the authors summarize the current knowledge on novel oral anticoagulants and discuss the clinical aspects of their use for stroke prevention in AF, with particular emphasis on apixaban.     

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in orthopedic surgery with vitamin K antagonists: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-to-risk ratio of vitamin K antagonists (VKA), relative to active comparators, especially low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), for preventing venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery is debated. OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized trials in orthopedic surgery comparing adjusted doses of VKA to control treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An exhaustive literature search, both manual and computer-assisted, was performed. Studies were selected on the basis of randomization procedure (VKA vs. a control group). At least one of the following outcome measures was to be evaluated: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), death, major hemorrhage or wound hematoma. Four reviewers assessed each article to determine eligibility for inclusion and outcome measures. RESULTS: VKAs were more effective than placebo or no treatment in reducing DVT [567 patients, relative risk (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37, 0.84, P < 0.01] and clinical PE (651 patients, RR = 0.23, 95% CI 0.09, 0.59, P < 0.01). These results were obtained at the cost of a higher rate of wound hematoma (162 patients, RR = 2.91, 95% CI 1.09, 7.75, P = 0.03). VKAs were also more effective than intermittent pneumatic compression (534 patients, RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25, 0.82, P = 0.009) in preventing proximal DVT. In contrast, VKAs were less effective than LMWH in preventing total DVT and proximal DVT (9822 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.27, 1.79, P < 0.001; and 6131 patients, RR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.04, 2.17, P = 0.028, respectively). The differences between VKA and LMWH in major hemorrhage and wound hematoma were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, VKAs are less effective than LMWH, without any significant difference in the bleeding risk.     

Personalizing oral anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation

For decades, warfarin has remained the standard oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Three novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been recently approved for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF: dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban. Better pharmacological and clinical profiles make these newcomers a preferable alternative over warfarin. Current AF guidelines do not endorse NOACs over warfarin, or one NOAC over another. Indeed, choice of the anticoagulation regimen should be personalized based on the relative efficacy and safety of different agents across subgroups stratified by thrombotic and bleeding risk, as well as on other clinical factors, including anticoagulation control on warfarin, drug interactions, compliance and need for coagulation monitoring. This review appraises i) the randomized evidence on approved NOACs versus warfarin in AF across subgroups stratified by risk factors of stroke and bleeding and by the anticoagulation level reached on warfarin; and ii) clinical factors impacting on the anticoagulation regimen selection.     

Approach to the new oral anticoagulants in family practice: Part 1: comparing the options

Objective

To compare key features of the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs)—dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban—and to address questions that arise when comparing the NOACs.

Sources of information

PubMed was searched for recent (January 2008 to week 32 of 2013) clinical studies relating to NOAC use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) and for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Main message

All NOACs are at least as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF, and are at least as safe in terms of bleeding risk according to 3 large trials. Meta-analyses of these trials have shown that, compared with warfarin therapy, NOACs reduced total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and intracranial bleeding, and there was a trend toward less overall bleeding. Practical advantages of NOACs over warfarin include fixed once- or twice-daily oral dosing without the need for coagulation monitoring, and few known or defined drug or food interactions. Potential drawbacks of NOACs include a risk of bleeding that might be increased in patients older than 75 years, increased major gastrointestinal bleeding with high-dose dabigatran, increased dyspepsia with dabigatran, the lack of a routine laboratory test to reliably measure anticoagulant effect, and the lack of an antidote for reversal. No direct comparisons of NOACs have been made in randomized controlled trials, and the choice of NOAC is influenced by individual patient characteristics, including risk of stroke or VTE, risk of bleeding, and comorbidity (eg, renal dysfunction).

Conclusion

The NOACs represent important alternatives in the management of patients with AF and VTE, especially for patients who have difficulty accessing regular coagulation monitoring. The companion to this article addresses common “what if” questions that arise in the long-term clinical follow-up and management of patients receiving NOACs.     

Clinical Benefit of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Heart Valves

PurposeThe use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic heart valve is still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the tolerability and effectiveness of treatment with DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and a bioprosthetic heart valve in clinical practice.MethodsData for this study were sourced from the multicenter, prospectively maintained AF Research Database (NCT03760874), which includes all patients with AF undergoing follow-up at participating centers through outpatient visits every 3–6 months. The rates of occurrence of thromboembolic events (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism), major bleed, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) were assessed. These data were used for quantifying the net clinical benefit (NCB) of DOACs versus VKAs, in accordance with the following formula: (Thromboembolic events incidence rate with VKAs – Thromboembolic events incidence rate with DOACs) – Weighting factor × (ICH rate with DOACs – ICH incidence rate with VKAs). The database was retrospectively queried for patients with AF who were prescribed a DOAC or VKA and had a history of bioprosthetic heart valve replacement.FindingsA total of 434 patients with AF (DOACs, n = 211; VKAs, n = 223) were identified. Propensity score matching identified 130 patients prescribed DOACs (apixaban, 55.4%; rivaroxaban, 30.0%; dabigatran, 13.1%; edoxaban, 1.4%) and the same number of VKA recipients (warfarin, 89.2%; acenocoumarol, 10.8%). The mean (SD) duration of follow-up was 26.8 (2.3) months. The incidence rates of thromboembolic events were 1.3 per 100 person-years in the DOAC group versus 2.0 per 100 person-years in the VKA group (P = 0.14). The incidence rates of major bleed events were 2.6 per 100 person-years in the DOAC group versus 4.9 per 100 person-years in the VKA group (P = 0.47). The incidence rates of ICH were 0.38 per 100 person-years in the DOAC group versus 1.16 in the VKA group (hazard ratio = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05–2.34; P = 0.3). A positive NCB of DOACs over VKAs of +1.87 was found.ImplicationsAccording to these data from clinical practice, DOACs seem to be associated with a greater NCB versus VKAs in patients with AF with a bioprosthetic heart valve, primarily due to lower rates of both major bleeds and thromboembolic events.     

心房颤动抗凝治疗进展

心房颤动是临床上最常见的心律失常,增加卒中风险。华法林抗凝效果虽已受到广泛的肯定,但同时存在出血风险、治疗窗狭窄、需要长期监测国际标准化比率以调整药量等缺点。新型口服抗凝药的应用如达比加群、利伐沙班、阿哌沙班可有效预防卒中及血栓栓塞。经皮左心耳封堵术亦可成为预防心房颤动血栓事件的有效替代治疗方式。     

A Propensity Score Matched Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Taking Vitamin K Antagonists: Comparing the “Real-World” vs Clinical Trials

Objective

To investigate the incidence and risk of adverse clinical outcomes in a “real-world” cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) anticoagulated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) from the Murcia AF Project in comparison with the warfarin arm of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) AMADEUS (Evaluating the Use of SR34006 Compared to Warfarin or Acenocoumarol in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation).

New pharmacotherapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Update 2010

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most commonly encountered arrhythmia in clinical practice and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Its prevalence increases with age, affecting about 1% of patients aged <60 years and almost 10% of patients >80 years. AF is associated with a fivefold increasing risk of embolism or stroke with absolute risk ranging from less than 1% to 20% per year, depending on patient age and the presence of clinical risk factors including congestive heart failure, systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus and prior history of cardioembolic events. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and acetyl salicylic acid are currently the only licensed antithrombotic therapies for stroke prevention in patients with AF. Anticoagulants are very effective for stroke prevention in patients 0084-8 12 with AF, overall a 64% relative risk reduction. Nonetheless, approximately 50% of patients with AF who have an indication for VKA receive anticoagulant therapy, of which only 50% maintain adequate therapeutic ranges. Furthermore, 50% will discontinue VKAs within 3 to 5 years regardless of appropriate international normalized ratio control. Underutilization of VKAs is related, in part, to their numerous limitations and difficulty in maintaining adequate therapeutic control, prompting the development of new antithrombotic strategies that are equally effective and safer, and easier to manage than VKAs. This review focuses on new antithrombotic therapies for stroke prevention in patients with AF.     

Effectiveness and safety of Dabigatran 110 mg versus 150 mg for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation at High Bleeding Risk

PurposeThe effectiveness and tolerability of a reduced dose (110 mg) of dabigatran versus the standard dose (150 mg) were evaluated in subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high bleeding risk.MethodsEligible patients were adults with AF and a creatinine clearance rate ≥30 mL/min who were initiated on treatment with dabigatran (index) between 2016 and 2018. High–bleeding-risk subgroups were identified: (1) age ≥80 years; (2) moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance rate 30–<50 mL/min); and (3) recent bleeding or a HAS-BLED score of ≥3. Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard regression models with inverse probability of treatment weights were used to investigate associations between dabigatran dose and three outcomes: stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding requiring hospitalization, and all-cause mortality.FindingsAmong 7858 patients with AF and a high bleeding risk (age ≥80 years, 3472; moderate renal impairment, 1574; recent bleeding or HAS-BLED score ≥3, 2812), 32.3% received reduced-dose dabigatran. Compared with the standard dose, use of the reduced dose of dabigatran was not associated with an increased risk for stroke or systemic embolism but was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding (HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44–0.95) and all-cause mortality (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65–0.92) in patients aged ≥80 years. The use of reduced-dose dabigatran was associated with a lower risk for major bleeding (HR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.95) and all-cause mortality among patients with moderate renal impairment (HR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40–0.71).ImplicationsLower risks for bleed and mortality associated with reduced- versus standard-dose dabigatran in patients with AF and a high bleeding risk suggest a better dosing strategy.     

Challenges of stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in clinical practice

Strokes and transient ischaemic attacks in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) can be largely prevented. Risk stratification and appropriate prophylactic regimens help to alleviate the burden of AF-related thromboembolism. Guidelines recommend routine anticoagulation with oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients at moderate-to-high risk of stroke, and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for those at low risk of stroke. ASA is less effective at reducing the risk of stroke than VKAs; however, ASA does not require monitoring or dose adjustment. Trials of anticoagulants show consistent benefits of oral VKAs for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with AF. Nevertheless, VKAs do require frequent coagulation monitoring and dose adjustment because of their variable dose-response profile, narrow therapeutic window, increased risk for bleeding complications and numerous food and drug interactions. This review aims to provide an overview of the clinical challenges of anticoagulant therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF.     

Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute cerebral hemorrhage: a meta‐analysis of controlled studies

Summary. Aim: The role of anticoagulants for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acute hemorrhagic stroke is uncertain. We performed an updated meta‐analysis of studies to obtain the best estimates of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with acute hemorrhagic stroke. Methods: Using electronic and manual searches of the literature, we identified randomized and non‐randomized studies comparing anticoagulants (unfractionated heparin or low‐molecular‐weight heparin or heparinoids) with treatments other than anticoagulants (elastic stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression or placebo) in patients with acute hemorrhagic stroke. Study outcomes included symptomatic and asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic and asymptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), any hematoma enlargement or death. Risk ratios (RRs) for individual outcomes were calculated for each study and data from all studies were pooled using the Mantel‐Haenszel method. Results: Four studies (two randomized) involving 1000 patients with acute hemorrhagic stroke met the criteria for inclusion in this meta‐analysis. Compared with other treatments, anticoagulants were associated with a significant reduction in PE (1.7% vs. 2.9%; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17–0.80; P = 0.01), a DVT rate of 4.2% compared with 3.3% (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44–1.34; P = 0.36), an increase in any hematoma enlargement (8.0% vs. 4.0%; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.57–3.53; P = 0.45), and a non‐significant reduction in mortality (16.1% vs. 20.9%; RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57–1.03; P = 0.07). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that in patients with hemorrhagic stroke, early anticoagulation is associated with a significant reduction in PE and a non‐significant reduction in mortality, with the trade‐off of a non‐significant increase in hematoma enlargement. These results must be taken with caution and should encourage the assessment of the clinical benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with cerebral bleeding by properly designed clinical trials.     

Edoxaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

Introduction: Edoxaban is the last direct oral anticoagulant marketed for the prevention of stroke among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Areas covered: ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 was the pivotal clinical trial that led to the approval of edoxaban 60 mg once daily. After the publication of this study, a great number of substudies and post hoc analyses have been published, together with some observational studies. The aim of this review was to update the current evidence about the use of edoxaban in AF patients.

Expert opinion: In the ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 trial, edoxaban 60 mg was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism, but significantly reduced the risk of bleeding, major adverse cardiac events and death from cardiovascular causes. The relative efficacy and safety of edoxaban 60 mg compared with warfarin were independent of different clinical conditions, such as prior stroke, age, risk of falls, renal function, hepatic disease, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, valvular heart disease, or cancer. Data about the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban in real-life patients are scarce, but consistent with those of the pivotal clinical trial. Edoxaban seems a cost-effective alternative to warfarin among AF patients with moderate to high thromboembolic risk.     

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic valves

Introduction: The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), which include dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban and rivaroxaban, are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stoke prevention in most patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The NOACs are contraindicated in atrial fibrillation patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves. There is evidence that bioprosthetic heart valves are less thrombogenic than mechanical heart valves, but it is unknown whether the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic valves differs from that in patients without such valves.

Areas covered: The authors present a review of the efficacy and safety evidence surrounding the use of NOACs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients with bioprosthetic heart valves.

Expert commentary: While the data is limited, there is no significant difference in thromboembolic, and bleeding outcomes in patients with AF and bioprosthetic heart valves treated with NOAC therapy. Future studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the safety and efficacy of NOAC therapy in AF patients bioprosthetic heart valves.