Abstract:Valvular heart disease is diffused worldwide and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.[1] Surgical valve replacement is the treatment of choice when valve repair is impossible. Both biological and mechanical prosthetic (biological and mechanical heart valves [BHV and MHV]) valves are available: BHVs have a shorter duration than MHVs but are associated with a lower thrombotic risk than MHVs, which require lifelong anticoagulation. Patients with MHVs are, therefore, exposed to a not negligible thromboembolic and bleeding risk, and the burden associated with the management of anticoagulation may substantially affect the quality of life. Unfortunately, direct oral anticoagulants were shown a lower safety and efficacy when compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this setting, and no alternative life-long treatment to VKAs is recommended for MHV patients.[2] [3] In Western countries, a substantial change in the epidemiology of valvular disorders occurred in the last decades. Rheumatic heart disease progressively declined, whereas a high prevalence of degenerative valve diseases occurred, according to the increase in the median age of the population. Instead, rheumatic heart disease is still endemic in a large part of low- and middle-income countries of Asia and Africa, affecting several children and young adults.[4] Indeed, MHVs have been progressively less implanted in Western countries, where many patients were elderly with degenerative valvular diseases, treated with endovascular procedures or BHV implantation, mainly for aortic valve disease. In addition, very limited research on MHV management has been performed in the last years: guidelines still recommend managing VKAs based on evidence from old studies in very different clinical settings compared to the actual standard of care of cardiologic patients. Therefore, we read with great interest the recent publication by Johansson et al,[5] who present data from a retrospective observational study evaluating the quality of anticoagulation in patients with MHV and the adverse events that occurred in relation to the quality of anticoagulation achieved. The study reported data from a cohort of MHV patients followed by the anticoagulation clinic (AC) of a Canadian tertiary care level university clinic for a median time of about 5 years. Almost 80% of patients received aortic MHV, most patients were males, with a median age of 61 years, and the median time of international normalized ratio (INR) time in therapeutic range (TTR) was 62.5%. Similarly, aortic MHVs were present in 78% of patients in a large Sweden cohort[6] and about 60% of cases in the Italian PLECTRUM cohort[7]; instead, patients with aortic MHV were only 15% in a sizeable Sub-Saharan cohort,[8] where the majority of patients were females and requiring mitral MHV implantation. The study of Johansson et al[5] found an increased risk of adverse events according to the quality of anticoagulation. Patients with a TTR of less than 40% showed a higher incidence of ischemic stroke and embolism, major bleeding, and death. Interestingly, a TTR <40% is also associated with a higher rate of adverse events in the large Sub-Saharan cohort.[8] On the contrary, in the Italian cohort, the risk of thromboembolic complications was not significantly higher among patients with a TTR <47%, corresponding to the lowest quartile of the entire cohort.[7] The relationship between the quality of anticoagulation expressed as TTR and the worst outcome of patients has been reported by several studies.[9] When VKAs are used in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism followed by ACs, good TTRs have been reported.[10] [11] However, in the same setting, the worst quality of anticoagulation was reported for MHV patients. Even if patients' different clinical characteristics should be considered, the higher intensity of anticoagulation recommended for MHV patients may play a vital role in this phenomenon. When the quality of anticoagulation was analyzed according to the intended target INR levels, a progressive decline of the achieved TTR was found as the INR therapeutic range increased.[7] In the Italian PLECTRUM cohort, when the target INR ranged between 2.0 and 3.0, a TTR of 71.5% was obtained. Instead, the TTR declined to 58.6 and 46.0% when the target INR range was maintained between 2.5–3.5 and 3.0–4.0, respectively. The association of poor anticoagulation with low TTR and the risk for thromboembolic complications among MHV patients has been found in several studies[6] [7] [8] and confirmed by Johansson and colleagues. When the TTRs' determinants were analyzed, a target INR range of 2.5 to 3.5 or higher was associated with a lower quality of anticoagulation.[12] During the last decades, international guidelines on the management of VKAs in MHV patients progressively reduced their re -Abstract Truncated-

Herbal interaction with warfarin.

Intestinal T cells, mucosal cell-mediated immunity and their relevance to food allergic disease

Psychological Status and Warfarin Therapy in Patients after Valve Replacement during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Study

Comprehensive collection of COVID-19 related prosthetic valve failure: a systematic review

Microscope-assisted precision (MAP) dentistry. A challenge for new knowledge.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on aortic valve replacement and outcomes in France

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement during the COVID‐19 pandemic—Current practice and concerns

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Global TAVR Activity

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on timing and early clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Outcomes of Patients with a Mechanical Heart Valve and Poor Anticoagulation Control on Warfarin

Comparison of Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists After Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement

Challenges in evaluating treatments for COVID-19: The case of in-hospital anticoagulant use and the risk of adverse outcomes

Should We Postpone Elective Cardiovascular Procedures and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Vitamin K: A Simple and Efficient Add-on to the Current Treatment Regime of COVID-19

The Association of Anticoagulation Intensity with Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients

Trends in the Diagnosis of Pediatric Venous Thromboembolism and Arterial Ischemic Stroke during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Administrative Database Study

Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Versus Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Agents After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Therapeutic vs. prophylactic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world studies

Maintaining the Quality of Mechanical Thrombectomy after Acute Ischemic Stroke in COVID(-)19 Patients

Anticoagulation in Patients with Mechanical Heart Valves: Less Is More?

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular heart disease medication use: time-series analysis of England's prescription data during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2019 to October 2020)