Antithrombotic therapy after heart valve intervention: review of mechanisms, evidence and current guidance

Abstract

As the population ages and treatment options for heart valve disease increase, the number of patients with intracardiac valve prostheses is growing rapidly. Although all devices have the potential to cause thrombus formation, the propensity depends on the type of prosthesis as well as risk of the individual patient. Mechanical valve prostheses carry the highest (and persistent) risk of thromboembolism, and these patients require anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (warfarin). Required international normalised ratio levels are dependent on the location of the valve (mitral>aortic), type of valve (ball and cage vs bilealfet vs On-X bilealfet) and rhythm. The risk of tissue (biological) prosthesis is highest soon after surgery and is dependent on individual patient risk including age, valve location (mitral>aortic), history of thromboembolic events and rhythm. In patients with no other indication for anticoagulation, there is uncertainty on the benefits of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in patients with tissue prostheses or repaired native valves. Patients with an a priori indication for anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant can continue taking this class of drug. Patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation devices and no additional evidence-based indication for dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation can be maintained on aspirin monotherapy. Patients undergoing transcatheter instrumentation in the mitral valve position should be anticoagulated, although there is currently no published evidence for antithrombotic management in this group of patients. Patients with thrombosed devices (commonly mitral mechanical) should preferably be treated surgically. Patients at high risk of thromboembolism (with mechanical prostheses) should undergo bridging therapy when undergoing surgery.