m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Perfusion · 2026

Anticoagulation after transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: A narrative review.

СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Arab Sammy, Chhatwal Karanjot, Mizori Rasi, Rustogi Arnav, Fuad Muhtasim, Sokhal Balamrit Singh, Motairek Issam, Al-Shakarchi Nader, Ahmed Raheel, Showkat Monjur, Punjabi Prakash

Аннотация

BackgroundBioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, specifically surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR), is among the most frequently performed cardiac interventions globally, yet anticoagulation strategies after implantation remain incompletely defined. Atrial fibrillation, notably prevalent pre- and post-operatively in these patients, substantially amplifies thromboembolic risk and complicates decision-making in an already elderly, frail, and comorbid population.ObjectivesTo critically evaluate current anticoagulation strategies after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement across sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation in both SAVR and TAVR, and to identify evidence gaps and guideline inconsistencies.MethodsWe conducted a narrative review of major international guidelines (ESC/EACTS 2025, ACC/AHA 2020, and NICE 2021) and key clinical trials on antithrombotic therapy in valve replacement populations. Focus was placed on bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, with mechanical and non-aortic valves excluded.ResultsAspirin monotherapy is the most consistently supported strategy after bioprosthetic TAVR in sinus rhythm, though guidelines diverge on duration and recommendation strength. In atrial fibrillation, all three guidelines apply uniform CHA2DS2-VASc-based frameworks irrespective of AF phenotype, procedural context, or detection modality, reflecting lacking evidence rather than deliberate clinical judgement. No trial has enrolled patients specifically with new-onset post-procedural AF or stratified by AF subtype, and subclinical AF after bioprosthetic AVR remains entirely uncharacterised.ConclusionsGuideline divergence reflects a structurally inadequate evidence base rather than genuine clinical equipoise. Individualised decisions informed by procedure type, AF phenotype, frailty, and bleeding risk are required to guide clinical practice, alongside an adequately powered stratified randomised trial incorporating mandatory continuous rhythm monitoring.

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты