Samer Al Said, Klaus Kaier, Edris Nury, Dima Alsaid, C Michael Gibson, Jeroen Bax, Dirk Westermann, Joerg J Meerpohl
{"title":"Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Samer Al Said, Klaus Kaier, Edris Nury, Dima Alsaid, C Michael Gibson, Jeroen Bax, Dirk Westermann, Joerg J Meerpohl","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013745.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Balancing the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains clinically challenging. Questions regarding the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after TAVR still need to be definitively answered.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs after TAVR in individuals with and without indication for anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP on 7 October 2023 together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NOACs versus antiplatelet therapy or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) after TAVR in adults with or without an indication for anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>We used standard Cochrane methods and conducted random-effects pair-wise analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs). Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included four RCTs with 4808 participants in the NMA. Of these, one compared rivaroxaban versus antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; one compared apixaban versus antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation or versus VKA in people with an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; one compared edoxaban versus VKA in people with an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; and one compared edoxaban with antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR. The mean age of trial participants was 81 years. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 18 months. Overall, we judged the risk of bias in the included trials to be low in all domains except for blinding, which was assessed as high in all four studies. No studies evaluated dabigatran. In people without an indication for anticoagulation, rivaroxaban and apixaban may increase all-cause mortality after TAVR as compared to antiplatelet therapy (rivaroxaban: risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.46; studies = 1, participants = 1644; moderate-certainty evidence; apixaban: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.02; studies = 1, participants = 1049; low-certainty evidence), while edoxaban may result in little or no difference (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.36; studies = 1, participants = 229; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and antiplatelet therapy in cardiovascular mortality (rivaroxaban: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.10; studies = 1, participants = 1644; apixaban: RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.65; studies = 1, participants = 1049; edoxaban: RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.39 to 142.38; studies = 1, participants = 229) and between rivaroxaban or edoxaban and antiplatelets in stroke (rivaroxaban: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.00; studies = 1, participants = 1644; edoxaban: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.42; studies = 1, participants = 229). While rivaroxaban versus antiplatelets probably increases major bleeding after TAVR (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.65; studies = 1, participants = 1644; moderate-certainty evidence), there may be little or no difference between apixaban and antiplatelet therapy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.64; studies = 1, participants = 1049; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if edoxaban has an effect on major bleeding, although the point estimate suggests increased bleeding (versus antiplatelets: RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.54 to 8.30; studies = 1, participants = 229; low-certainty evidence). In people with an indication for anticoagulation, low-certainty evidence suggests apixaban or edoxaban may result in little to no difference in our predefined primary efficacy outcomes after TAVR when compared to VKA (all-cause mortality: apixaban: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.77; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.20; studies = 1, participants = 1426; cardiovascular mortality: apixaban: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.70; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.57; studies = 1, participants = 1426; stroke: apixaban: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.70; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; studies = 1, participants = 1426). While apixaban may result in a similar rate of bleeding as VKA in this population, edoxaban probably increases major bleeding after TAVR in people with an indication for anticoagulation (apixaban: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.54; studies = 1, participants = 451; low-certainty evidence; edoxaban: RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; studies = 1, participants = 1426; moderate-certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>In people without an indication for oral anticoagulation, rivaroxaban and apixaban may increase all-cause mortality when compared to antiplatelet therapy, while edoxaban may result in little or no difference. There might be little or no difference between rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and antiplatelet therapy in cardiovascular mortality, and between rivaroxaban or edoxaban and antiplatelets in stroke. While rivaroxaban probably increases major bleeding following TAVR, there might be little or no difference between apixaban and antiplatelet therapy, and the effect of edoxaban on major bleeding remains unclear. In people with an indication for anticoagulation, apixaban and edoxaban may be as effective as VKA in preventing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke. Apixaban may lead to a similar rate of major bleeding as VKA in this population. However, edoxaban probably increases major bleeding following TAVR when compared to VKA. Our NMA did not show superiority of one NOAC over another for any of the primary outcomes. Head-to-head trials directly comparing NOACs against each other are required to increase the certainty of the evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"2 ","pages":"CD013745"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11848970/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013745.pub2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:平衡经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后血栓栓塞和出血的风险在临床上仍具有挑战性。有关经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后非维生素 K 口服抗凝剂(NOACs)的疗效和安全性问题仍有待明确回答:目的:评估有抗凝适应症和无抗凝适应症的患者在TAVR术后使用NOACs的疗效和安全性:我们于2023年10月7日检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov和WHO ICTRP,并进行了参考文献检查和引文检索,以确定其他研究:我们搜索了在有或没有抗凝适应症的成人中,比较 TAVR 后 NOAC 与抗血小板疗法或维生素 K 拮抗剂 (VKAs) 的随机对照试验 (RCT):我们采用标准的 Cochrane 方法,进行了随机效应配对分析和网络荟萃分析 (NMA)。我们的主要结果是全因死亡率、心血管死亡率、中风和大出血。我们使用 GRADE 评估证据的确定性:我们在 NMA 中纳入了四项 RCT,共有 4808 名参与者。其中,一项研究比较了利伐沙班与抗血小板疗法在TAVR后无抗凝指征人群中的应用;一项研究比较了阿哌沙班与抗血小板疗法在TAVR后无抗凝指征人群中的应用或与VKA在TAVR后有抗凝指征人群中的应用;一项研究比较了依多沙班与VKA在TAVR后有抗凝指征人群中的应用;一项研究比较了依多沙班与抗血小板疗法在TAVR后无抗凝指征人群中的应用。试验参与者的平均年龄为 81 岁。随访时间从 6 个月到 18 个月不等。总体而言,我们认为纳入的试验在所有方面的偏倚风险都较低,但盲法除外,所有四项研究的盲法均被评估为较高。没有研究对达比加群进行评估。对于无抗凝指征的患者,与抗血小板疗法相比,利伐沙班和阿哌沙班可能会增加TAVR术后的全因死亡率(利伐沙班:风险比(RR)1.67,95%置信区间(CI)1.13~2.46;研究=1,参与者=1644;中度确定性证据;阿哌沙班:RR 1.71,95%置信区间(CI)1.13~2.46;研究=1,参与者=1644;中度确定性证据):RR为1.71,95% CI为0.97至3.02;研究=1,参与者=1049;低度确定性证据),而依多沙班可能导致的差异很小或没有差异(RR为1.59,95% CI为0.27至9.36;研究=1,参与者=229;低度确定性证据)。低确定性证据表明,利伐沙班、阿哌沙班或依度沙班与抗血小板疗法在心血管死亡率方面几乎没有差异(利伐沙班:RR 1.28,95% CI 0.27 至 9.36;研究 = 1;参与者 = 229;低确定性证据):RR为1.28,95% CI为0.78至2.10;研究=1,参与者=1644;阿哌沙班:RR为1.30,95% CI为0.64至2.65;研究=1,参与者=1049;埃多沙班:RR7.44,95% CI 0.39至142.38;研究=1,参与者=229),以及利伐沙班或埃多沙班与抗血小板药物在中风中的作用(利伐沙班:RR为1.19,95% CI为0.71至2.00;研究=1,参与者=1644;依度沙班:RR为1.06,95% CI为0.15至7.42;研究=1,参与者=229)。利伐沙班与抗血小板治疗相比可能会增加TAVR后的大出血(RR 1.98,95% CI 1.07至3.65;研究=1,参与者=1644;中度确定性证据),而阿哌沙班与抗血小板治疗之间可能差异很小或没有差异(RR 1.07,95% CI 0.70至1.64;研究=1,参与者=1049;低度确定性证据)。目前尚不清楚埃多沙班是否对大出血有影响,尽管点估计值表明出血会增加(与抗血小板疗法相比,RR 2.13,95% CI 0.70 至 1.64;研究 = 1;参与者 = 1049;低确定性证据):RR 2.13,95% CI 0.54 至 8.30;研究 = 1,参与者 = 229;低确定性证据)。对于有抗凝适应症的患者,低确定性证据表明,与 VKA 相比,阿哌沙班或埃多沙班可能会导致 TAVR 后我们预先定义的主要疗效结果几乎没有差异(全因死亡率:阿哌沙班:RR 1.02,95% CI 0.54 至 8.30;研究 = 1;参与者 = 229;低确定性证据):RR为1.02,95% CI为0.59至1.77;研究=1,参与者=451;埃多沙班:RR为0.91,95% CI为0.69至1.20;研究=1,参与者=1426;心血管死亡率:阿哌沙班:RR为1.43,95% CI为0.76至2.70;研究=1,参与者=451;埃多沙班:RR 1.07,95% CI 0.72 至 1.57;研究 = 1,参与者 = 1426;中风:阿哌沙班:RR 1.28,95% CI 0.35 至 4.70;研究 = 1,参与者 = 451;依度沙班:RR为0.83,95% CI为0.51至1.34;研究=1,参与者=1426)。在这一人群中,阿哌沙班可能会导致与VKA相似的出血率,而在有抗凝适应症的人群中,依多沙班可能会增加TAVR后的大出血(阿哌沙班:RR 0.90,95% CI 0.51至1.34;研究=1,参与者=1426):RR为0.90,95% CI为0.53至1.54;研究=1,参与者=451;低确定性证据;埃多沙班:RR为1.44,95% CI为1.08至1.93;研究=1,参与者=1426;中等确定性证据)。
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): a network meta-analysis.
Background: Balancing the risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains clinically challenging. Questions regarding the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) after TAVR still need to be definitively answered.
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NOACs after TAVR in individuals with and without indication for anticoagulation.
Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP on 7 October 2023 together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.
Selection criteria: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NOACs versus antiplatelet therapy or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) after TAVR in adults with or without an indication for anticoagulation.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods and conducted random-effects pair-wise analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs). Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
Main results: We included four RCTs with 4808 participants in the NMA. Of these, one compared rivaroxaban versus antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; one compared apixaban versus antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation or versus VKA in people with an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; one compared edoxaban versus VKA in people with an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR; and one compared edoxaban with antiplatelet therapy in people without an indication for anticoagulation after TAVR. The mean age of trial participants was 81 years. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 to 18 months. Overall, we judged the risk of bias in the included trials to be low in all domains except for blinding, which was assessed as high in all four studies. No studies evaluated dabigatran. In people without an indication for anticoagulation, rivaroxaban and apixaban may increase all-cause mortality after TAVR as compared to antiplatelet therapy (rivaroxaban: risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 2.46; studies = 1, participants = 1644; moderate-certainty evidence; apixaban: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.02; studies = 1, participants = 1049; low-certainty evidence), while edoxaban may result in little or no difference (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.36; studies = 1, participants = 229; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and antiplatelet therapy in cardiovascular mortality (rivaroxaban: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.10; studies = 1, participants = 1644; apixaban: RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.65; studies = 1, participants = 1049; edoxaban: RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.39 to 142.38; studies = 1, participants = 229) and between rivaroxaban or edoxaban and antiplatelets in stroke (rivaroxaban: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.00; studies = 1, participants = 1644; edoxaban: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.42; studies = 1, participants = 229). While rivaroxaban versus antiplatelets probably increases major bleeding after TAVR (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.65; studies = 1, participants = 1644; moderate-certainty evidence), there may be little or no difference between apixaban and antiplatelet therapy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.64; studies = 1, participants = 1049; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear if edoxaban has an effect on major bleeding, although the point estimate suggests increased bleeding (versus antiplatelets: RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.54 to 8.30; studies = 1, participants = 229; low-certainty evidence). In people with an indication for anticoagulation, low-certainty evidence suggests apixaban or edoxaban may result in little to no difference in our predefined primary efficacy outcomes after TAVR when compared to VKA (all-cause mortality: apixaban: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.77; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.20; studies = 1, participants = 1426; cardiovascular mortality: apixaban: RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.70; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.57; studies = 1, participants = 1426; stroke: apixaban: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.70; studies = 1, participants = 451; edoxaban: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; studies = 1, participants = 1426). While apixaban may result in a similar rate of bleeding as VKA in this population, edoxaban probably increases major bleeding after TAVR in people with an indication for anticoagulation (apixaban: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.54; studies = 1, participants = 451; low-certainty evidence; edoxaban: RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; studies = 1, participants = 1426; moderate-certainty evidence).
Authors' conclusions: In people without an indication for oral anticoagulation, rivaroxaban and apixaban may increase all-cause mortality when compared to antiplatelet therapy, while edoxaban may result in little or no difference. There might be little or no difference between rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban and antiplatelet therapy in cardiovascular mortality, and between rivaroxaban or edoxaban and antiplatelets in stroke. While rivaroxaban probably increases major bleeding following TAVR, there might be little or no difference between apixaban and antiplatelet therapy, and the effect of edoxaban on major bleeding remains unclear. In people with an indication for anticoagulation, apixaban and edoxaban may be as effective as VKA in preventing all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke. Apixaban may lead to a similar rate of major bleeding as VKA in this population. However, edoxaban probably increases major bleeding following TAVR when compared to VKA. Our NMA did not show superiority of one NOAC over another for any of the primary outcomes. Head-to-head trials directly comparing NOACs against each other are required to increase the certainty of the evidence.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.