RESUMO
Background: Various anticoagulant therapies are prescribed to patients under physicians' discretion and recently Direct Oral Anticoagulants(DOAC) have been under trials to evaluate their safety and efficacy. In addition to this, the regimen of DOACs and Aspirin is of keen interest as researchers continue to find an optimal regimen to treat blood clots in patients. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies that asses the safety and efficacy of DOAC with and without Aspirin. Methods: We queried MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception to April 2021, for published and randomized controlled trials and observational studies in any language that compared dual (DOAC + ASA) therapy or mono (DOAC alone) therapy in patients with AF. The results from the studies were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. Endpoints of interest included major bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, and stroke. Results: The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower in the DOAC alone group compared with DOAC plus aspirin group. Non-significant results were obtained (P value greater than 0.05) for other outcomes establishing that DOAC monotherapy was not superior to the combined regimen in reducing the risk of MACE, Stroke, Hospitalization, Death. Conclusion: Among patients with NVAF (Non valvular Atrial Fibrillation) and VTE (Venous thromboembolism) receiving anticoagulation prophylaxis, in terms of safety profile our comparisons showed a statistically significant reduction in Major Bleeding in DOAC Alone group compared with DOAC Plus Aspirin.
RESUMO
Background Redo mitral valve surgery is required in up to one-third of patients and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV TMVR) is less invasive and could be considered in those at prohibitive surgical risk. Studies on comparative outcomes of ViV TMVR and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) remain limited. Our study aimed to investigate the real-world outcomes of the above procedures using the National Inpatient Sample database. Methods and Results We analyzed National Inpatient Sample data using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) from September 2015 to December 2018. A total of 495 and 2250 patients underwent redo ViV TMVR and SMVR, respectively. The patients who underwent ViV TMVR were older (77 versus 68 years, P<0.01). Adjusted mortality was higher in the redo SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group (7.6% versus <2.8%, P<0.01). Perioperative complications were higher among patients undergoing redo SMVR including blood transfusions (38% versus 7.6%, P<0.01) and acute kidney injury (36.7% versus 13.9%, P<0.01). Cost of care was higher (USD$57 172 versus USD$52 579, P<0.01), length of stay was longer (10 versus 3 days, P<0.01), and discharge to home was lower (20.3% versus 64.6%, P<0.01) in the SMVR group compared with the ViV TMVR group. Conclusions ViV TMVR is associated with lower mortality, periprocedural morbidity, and resource use compared with patients undergoing redo SMVR. ViV TMVR may be a viable option for some patients with mitral prosthesis dysfunction. Studies evaluating long-term outcomes and durability of ViV TMVR are needed. A patient-centered approach by the heart team, local institutional expertise, and careful preprocedure planning can help decision-making about the choice of intervention for the individual patient.
