Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS) are approved for use in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. warfarin and update the evidence for treatment of AF and valvular heart disease (VHD). Methods: We identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses comparing the use of DOACS and Warfarin in AF and VHD, including biological and mechanical heart valves (MHV), updating from 2010 to 2020. Through systematic review and meta-analysis, by using the "Rev Man" program 5.3, the primary effectiveness endpoints were stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, while the secondary outcome included intracranial hemorrhage. We performed prespecified subgroup analyses. Data were analyzed by risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and the I-square (I 2) statistic as a quantitative measure of inconsistency. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment of included trials was evaluated with the modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: We screened 326 articles and included 8 RCTs (n = 14.902). DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE (RR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; P = 0.008; moderate quality evidence; I 2 = 2%) and intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.66; P = 0.0004; I 2 = 49%) with a similar risk of major bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.24; P = 0.36; I 2 = 88%) compared to Warfarin. Conclusions: In this update, DOACs remained with similar efficacy and safety compared to warfarin in thromboprophylaxis for AF and VHD.
Keywords: anticoagulation; direct oral anticoagulants; valvular atrial fibrillation; valvular heart disease; warfarin.
Copyright © 2021 Bitar, Duraes, Roever, Gomes Neto, Lins-Kusterer and Bocchi.