Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment option for symptomatic patients with severe aortic valvular disease who are not suitable for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement. Despite improving experience and techniques, ischaemic and bleeding complications after TAVI remain prevalent and impair survival in this generally old and comorbid-rich population. Due to changing aetiology of complications over time, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after TAVI should be carefully balanced. Empirically, a dual antiplatelet strategy is generally used after TAVI for patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC; e. g. atrial fibrillation, mechanical mitral valve prosthesis), including aspirin and a thienopyridine. For patients on OAC, a combination of OAC and aspirin or thienopyridine is generally used. This review shows that current registries are unfit to directly compare antithrombotic regimens. Small exploring studies suggest that additional clopidogrel after TAVI only affects bleeding and not ischemic complications. However, these studies are lack in quality in terms of Cochrane criteria. Currently, three randomised controlled trials are recruiting to gather more knowledge about the effects of clopidogrel after TAVI.

This study-based meta-analysis shows that it may be both safer and more effective to use NOACs compared with VKAs to treat patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and concomitant aspirin therapy.

No abstract

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend non-vitamin‑K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as the first-choice therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The use of drugs in a clinical trial setting differs from that in real-world populations. Real-world data are important to accrue more heterogeneous patient populations with respect to co-morbidities and co-medication use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of NOACs in daily practice in a large tertiary hospital in the Netherlands.MethodsA single-centre prospective study was conducted among all patients with AF using a NOAC in the St. Antonius Hospital between 2013 and June 2017. The outcomes were the rates of any bleeding, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, mortality, discontinuation rate and adverse drug reactions.ResultsIn total, 799 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up of 1.7 years. Mean age was 69.8 (SD ± 11) and 61.2% were male. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.8 (SD ± 1.6) and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.4 (SD ± 0.9). Bleeding occurred in 6.0, major bleeding in 1.8, stroke in 1.2 patients per 100 patient-years, and 87 patients (10.9%) died during the follow-up period. Adverse drug reactions were reported by 59 patients (7.4%). Finally, 249 patients (31.2%) reported a temporary interruption and 132 (16.5%) permanent discontinuation of NOAC treatment, of whom 33 (25%) patients switched to a vitamin‑K antagonist.ConclusionsWe observed low rates of bleeding and adverse drug reactions. However, rates of mortality and discontinuation were relatively high. These results could possibly be explained by the real-world nature of the data including higher-risk patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-019-01330-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundNon-vitamin‑K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are recommended as the first-choice therapy for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the lack of monitoring may impact patients’ adherence, and non-adherence to medication is a potential hazard to safe and efficacious use. This is the first report with a ‘comparative patient-oriented perspective’ regarding the use of anticoagulant medication in the NOACs era. Our aim was to compare patients’ self-reported practical problems, adverse events and non-adherence to anticoagulation therapy.MethodsA survey was conducted among patients with AF on either NOACs or vitamin‑K antagonists (VKAs). The outcomes were self-reported non-adherence to anticoagulant medication, and patients’ experiences, adverse events and practical problems correlated with the intake of the drug itself.ResultsA total of 765 patients filled out the questionnaire, of which 389 (50.9%) were on VKAs and 376 (49.1%) on NOACs. Age (70.6 ± 8.8 vs 70.3 ± 9.1 years) and male gender (70.4% vs 64.6%) were similar in the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of VKA users than NOAC users reported having frequent (16.2% vs 3.7%, p > 0.001) or occasional (4.1% vs 1.3%, p > 0.001) practical issues with medication intake. Self-reported non-adherence was significantly higher (24.4% vs 18.1%, p = 0.03) among VKA users. The incidence of self-reported adverse events was similar.ConclusionPatient experiences support the current guideline recommendations for NOACs as the first-choice therapy: NOAC therapy resulted in a higher practical feasibility and better adherence when compared with VKA therapy, with a similar incidence of adverse events in both groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-019-01331-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This analysis suggests that the use of NOACs is a cost-effective alternative of VKAs in patients with AF needing anti-platelet therapy. Our findings in the Netherlands healthcare system are probably consistent with other European populations.

No abstract

A significant number of patients with atrial fibrillation, treated with oral anticoagulants, present with an acute coronary syndrome. Many of these patients have an indication for coronary angiography. The introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and the novel P2Y12 inhibitors has generated new uncertainty about the optimal treatment regimen, whether triple or dual therapy should be given and which is the most beneficial P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel). In this article, we will summarise the practical advice on the management of acute coronary syndrome patients requiring oral anticoagulants following the recent consensus document of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Thrombosis in association with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and ESC guidelines.