Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists: Which one is more effective in atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Background

The optimal approach for anticoagulation in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a subject of debate. A meta-analysis using updated evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves to address this controversy.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up until March 2023. The search aimed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety outcomes of both direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with bioprosthetic valves and atrial fibrillation. The primary outcomes of interest were major bleeding and all-cause mortality.

Results

Our study demonstrated that despite the difference was not significant, the hazard of all-cause mortality was 2.5% higher in the DOAC group (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.88, 1.19], p-value = .75). Similarly, the hazard of stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = [0.87, 1.32], p-value = .71) and major bleeding (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = [0.89, 1.38], p-value = .36) were found to be respectively 3.2 and 10.7% higher in the DOAC group, although the difference was not significant. However, the hazard of intracranial hemorrhage was found to be 28.8 lower in the DOAC treatment group (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.31], p-value = .27), which again was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that in patients undergoing bioprosthetic valve surgery and presenting with AF afterward, DOAC and VKA are similar regarding life-threatening and all-cause mortality outcomes, including major bleeding, stroke, and intracranial hemorrhage.