Are NOACs as safe and efficient as VKA regarding thromboembolic prophylaxis and major bleeding in patients with surgical bioprosthesis and atrial fibrillation within 3 months of surgery?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: ‘Are NOACs as safe and efficient as vitamin K antagonist regarding thromboembolic prophylaxis and major bleeding in patients with surgical bioprosthesis and atrial fibrillation within 3 months of surgery?’ Altogether more than 324 papers were found using the reported search, of which 6 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The RIVER and ENAVLE trials showed non-inferiority of rivaroxaban (regarding mean time free from composite of death, major cardiovascular events or major bleeding at 12 months) and edoxaban (composite of death, clinical thromboembolic events or asymptomatic intracardiac thrombosis; and major bleeding) when compared with vitamin K antagonist. These studies include a low number of patients within 3 months of index surgery and overall low statistical power regarding this particular subgroup of patients. Data derived from lower evidence studies are compatible with the aforementioned findings. The available evidence suggests that non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants are as safe and as efficient as vitamin K antagonist regarding thromboembolic prophylaxis and bleeding event rates in patients with surgical bioprosthesis and atrial fibrillation within 3 months of bioprosthesis implantation. However, this evidence is derived from a limited number of studies with important methodological limitations. Expanding non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulant recommendation to the early postoperative period warrants more confirmatory research.