Efficacy and safety of anti-thrombotic therapy after surgical mitral valve repair: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mitral valve repair (MVr) is the gold standard treatment for degenerative mitral regurgitation, yet there is ongoing controversy regarding optimal anti-thrombotic therapy post-MVr. This scoping review aimed to summarise current evidence on the safety and efficacy of anti-thrombotic therapy after MVr, identify knowledge gaps and propose a future study design. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and bibliographies of included trials, guidelines and other reviews from inception to 17 September 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and cohort and case-control studies assessing any anti-thrombotic therapy with any outcomes after MVr were included. Using a predefined collection form, two authors independently extracted data on study characteristics and results were summarised narratively into themes based on the PICO elements. RESULTS: Of 1296 screened references, we included 11 studies (10 cohort and one non-inferiority RCT). All studies compared vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to an anti-platelet, direct oral anti-coagulant or no anti-thrombotic therapy for median duration of 90 days. Thromboembolic and bleeding event incidences ranged from 0% to 14.3% and 0% to 9.1%, respectively. Seven studies reported no difference in thromboembolic events, and three reported reduced rates with VKA compared with control, while results for bleeding events varied widely. The RCT found edoxaban was non-inferior to warfarin for thromboembolic outcomes, but not for bleeding. Substantial methodological and clinical heterogeneity, high risk of bias and insufficient mitigation of confounders, such as concomitant atrial fibrillation, were prevalent across studies. CONCLUSION: Based on this scoping review, existing literature on anti-thrombotic therapy after MVr is inconclusive due to design limitations. We proposed a study design for a pragmatic RCT that addresses prior study limitations and that could provide definitive evidence to guide anti-thrombotic management in MVr patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".