Explore the vast range of titles available.

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy in native and prosthetic valvular heart disease is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S-187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease and atrial fibrillation (AF), or a history of previous systemic embolism, we recommend long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy (target international normalized ratio [INR], 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease with AF or a history of systemic embolism who suffer systemic embolism while receiving OACs at a therapeutic INR, we recommend adding aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C). For those patients unable to take aspirin, we recommend adding dipyridamole, 400 mg/d, or clopidogrel (Grade 1C). In people with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) without history of systemic embolism, unexplained transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), or AF, we recommended against any antithrombotic therapy (Grade 1C). In patients with MVP and documented but unexplained TIAs, we recommend long-term aspirin therapy, 50 to 162 mg/d (Grade 1A). For all patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1C+). For patients with a St. Jude Medical (St. Paul, MN) bileaflet valve in the aortic position, we recommend a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1A]. For patients with tilting disk valves and bileaflet mechanical valves in the mitral position, we recommend a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with caged ball or caged disk valves, we suggest a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) in combination with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 2A). For patients with bioprosthetic valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists with a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) for the first 3 months after valve insertion in the mitral position (Grade 1C+) and in the aortic position (Grade 2C). For patients with bioprosthetic valves who are in sinus rhythm and do not have AF, we recommend long-term (> 3 months) therapy with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C+).

Because of the number and complexity of issues addressed, this manuscript is divided into two major sections. The first section focuses on how new technology can transform vitamin K antagonist therapy. Specifically, evidence suggest that combining INR self testing with online automated management (STOAM) can greatly reduce the time, expense, and hassle of managing VKA therapy; improve the quality of INR control to a degree that, in large studies, has been associated with a 50% or more reduction in major events (such as stroke, myocardial infarction, major hemorrhage, and death); reduce health care costs by an estimated $4 million per 1,000 patients per year; and improve quality of life and patient satisfaction. Such improved VKA therapy should be safer, more effective, and more cost-effective than the new oral anticoagulants. The improved efficiency and outcomes also should prompt reconsideration of indications in which VKA therapy may not be the current standard of care. Although new reimbursement models are clearly needed for STOAM, the current Medicare reimbursement model for patient self testing can be utilized to make VKA management financially viable and sustainable. The second section of this article focuses on additional considerations that may be important in optimizing VKA therapy and/or selecting an online management system. A brief review is provided to examine why a recent meta analysis and a large randomized trial of self testing did not find the same degree of improvement as reported in the four STOAM trials described in the first section of this article.

1. Permanent therapy with oral anticoagulants offers the most consistent protection in patients with mechanical heart valves. 2. Antiplatelet agents alone do not consistently protect patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, including patients in sinus rhythm with St. Jude Medical valves in the aortic position. 3. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.0 to 3.0 appear satisfactory for patients with St. Jude Medical bileaflet and Medtronic-Hall tilting disk mechanical valves in the aortic position, provided they are in sinus rhythm and the left atrium is not enlarged. Presumably, this is also true for the CarboMedics bileaflet valve, based on the observation of no clinically important difference in the rate of systemic embolism with this valve and the St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve. 4. Levels of oral anticoagulants that prolong the INR to 2.5 to 3.5 are satisfactory for tilting disk valves and bileaflet prosthetic valves in the mitral position. 5. Experience in patients with caged ball valves who had prothrombin time ratios reported in terms of the INR is sparse, because few such valves have been inserted in recent years. The number of surviving patients with caged ball valves continues to decrease. It has been suggested that the most advantageous level of the INR in patients with caged ball or caged disk valves should be as high as 4.0 to 4.9. However, others have shown a high rate of major hemorrhage with an INR that is even somewhat lower, 3.0-4.5. The problem is self-limited, however, because few such valves are being inserted. 6. In patients with mechanical heart valves, aspirin, in addition to oral anticoagulants, has been shown to diminish the frequency of thromboemboli. The risk of bleeding is somewhat increased if the INR is 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.5 to 3.5. However, if the INR is 3.0 to 4.5, the risk of bleeding becomes excessive with aspirin. There are no investigations in which aspirin 80 mg/d in combination with oral anticoagulants was evaluated. 7. Data are insufficient to recommend dipyridamole over low doses of aspirin in combination with warfarin. Whether dipyridamole plus aspirin is more effective than aspirin alone when used with warfarin is undetermined. 8. Patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position as well as patients with bioprosthetic valves in the aortic position may be at risk for thromboemboli during the first 3 months after operation. 9. Among patients with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position, oral anticoagulants at an INR of 2.0 to 2.3 were as effective as an INR of 2.5 to 4.0 and were associated with fewer bleeding complications during the first 3 months after operation.10. Aspirin may reduce the long-term frequency of thromboembolism in patients with bioprosthetic valves.

Issue Title: Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Anticoagulant Therapy. Sponsored by the Anticoagulation Forum; Guest Editor: David Garcia, MD

This chapter about antithrombotic therapy in native and prosthetic valvular heart disease is part of the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: Evidence Based Guidelines. Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patients' values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading see Guyatt et al, CHEST 2004; 126:179S–187S). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease and atrial fibrillation (AF), or a history of previous systemic embolism, we recommend long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy (target international normalized ratio [INR], 2.5; range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease with AF or a history of systemic embolism who suffer systemic embolism while receiving OACs at a therapeutic INR, we recommend adding aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C). For those patients unable to take aspirin, we recommend adding dipyridamole, 400 mg/d, or clopidogrel (Grade 1C). In people with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) without history of systemic embolism, unexplained transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), or AF, we recommended against any antithrombotic therapy (Grade 1C). In patients with MVP and documented but unexplained TIAs, we recommend long-term aspirin therapy, 50 to 162 mg/d (Grade 1A). For all patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1C+). For patients with a St. Jude Medical (St. Paul, MN) bileaflet valve in the aortic position, we recommend a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) [Grade 1A]. For patients with tilting disk valves and bileaflet mechanical valves in the mitral position, we recommend a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) [Grade 1C+]. For patients with caged ball or caged disk valves, we suggest a target INR of 3.0 (range, 2.5 to 3.5) in combination with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 2A). For patients with bioprosthetic valves, we recommend vitamin K antagonists with a target INR of 2.5 (range, 2.0 to 3.0) for the first 3 months after valve insertion in the mitral position (Grade 1C+) and in the aortic position (Grade 2C). For patients with bioprosthetic valves who are in sinus rhythm and do not have AF, we recommend long-term (> 3 months) therapy with aspirin, 75 to 100 mg/d (Grade 1C+).

To the Editor: The conflicting recommendations of the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study (ANBP2) reported by Wing et al. (Feb. 13 issue) 1 and the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) 2 concerning the superiority of diuretics or angiotensin-converting–enzyme (ACE) inhibitors can be reconciled. In ALLHAT, the rates of the cardiovascular disease–related end points were higher in the ACE-inhibitor group than in the diuretic group because there were more hospitalizations for heart failure and more strokes. In ANBP2, there were no significant differences in either of these end points. The higher rate of stroke in the ACE-inhibitor . . .

To the Editor: In a recent paper (Aug. 19 issue), Turpie et al. report a beneficial effect of adding aspirin to warfarin treatment for heart-valve recipients 1 . We question the interpretation of this study. The risk of major embolism among patients who received both aspirin and warfarin was 1.6 percent per year, a figure higher than those from the literature for treatment with oral anticoagulants only. Bloomfield et al. 2 found a 12-year cumulative risk of 8.8 percent, which corresponds to an annual incidence of about 0.8 percent (and not, as stated by Turpie et al., of 2 to 3 percent, . . .

To review the state of the art of laboratory monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy, as reflected by the medical literature and the consensus opinion of recognized experts in the field, and to make recommendations for improvement in laboratory monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy. Review of the medical literature, primarily from the last 10 years, and current laboratory practices by a panel of 8 international experts in the field of oral anticoagulant monitoring. After an initial assessment of the literature, key points were identified. Experts were assigned to do an in-depth review of the literature and current practices relevant to each of the key points and to prepare a summary of their findings and recommendations. A draft manuscript was prepared and circulated to every participant in the College of American Pathologists Conference XXXI on Laboratory Monitoring of Anticoagulant Therapy prior to the conference. Each of the key points and associated recommendations was then presented for discussion at the Conference. Recommendations were accepted if a consensus of the 26 experts attending the Conference was reached. The results of the discussion were used to revise the manuscript into its final form. Consensus was reached on 12 recommendations concerning the laboratory monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy. Detailed discussion of the rationale for each of these recommendations is found in the text of this article. Discussion of points on which consensus was not reached is also included in the text. It is hoped that widespread adoption of these recommendations will further improve the laboratory monitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy.

To the Editor: The article by Packer et al. 1 in the January 14 issue provided valuable information on the development of tolerance to long-term hydralazine therapy in some patients with congestive heart failure. I believe, however, that the potential role of fluctuations in the effects of digoxin was not adequately considered. Packer et al. did not indicate the serum digoxin concentrations of their patients, nor did they indicate that any digoxin dosage adjustments were made after the initiation of vasodilating agents. Although the authors acknowledged that hemodynamic alterations may produce changes in the absorption of orally administered drugs (including digoxin), . . . No extract is available for articles shorter than 400 words.