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-

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

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

Peri-procedural anticoagulation management of mechanical prosthetic heart valve patients

Mechanical valve replacement for patients with rheumatic heart disease: the reality of INR control in Africa and beyond

Mechanical valve thrombosis: Current management and differences between guidelines

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

Quality of Oral Anticoagulation with Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in ‘real-World’ Patients: Lessons from a Five Years Audit Study

Anticoagulant Therapy in Pregnant Women with Mechanical Heart Valves: Italian Federation of Centers for Diagnosis and Surveillance of the Antithrombotic Therapies (FCSA) Position Paper

Are the Direct Oral Anticoagulants Better for Patients with Low Time in the Therapeutic Range on Vitamin K Antagonist Therapy?

Dosing Intensity of Anticoagulants for the Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism and the Prevention of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation: Why is There a Difference?

Evaluation of Vitamin K Antagonists Management and Control in Patients with Mechanical Prosthetic Heart Valves during the COVID-19 Pandemic

From the INVICTUS Trial to Current Considerations: It's Not Time to Retire Vitamin K Inhibitors Yet!

The Optimal Anticoagulant Therapy for Mechanical Heart Valves in a Gallbladder Cancer Patient with Hepatic Metastases A Case Report

Consequences of the Poor Anticoagulation Control of Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated with Vitamin K Antagonists

Effect of continuity of care on anticoagulant therapy and quality of life after heart valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anticoagulation therapy and clinical outcomes following transcatheter mitral valve repair for patients with mitral regurgitation: A meta‐analysis

Comparison of Different Bridging Anticoagulation Therapies Used after Mechanical Heart Valve Replacement in Chinese Patients-a Prospective Cohort Study

Relation of the ‘Atrial Fibrillation Better Care (ABC) Pathway’ to the Quality of Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Taking Vitamin K Antagonists

Anticoagulation in Patients with Aortic Stenosis and Atrial Fibrillation

Thirty-year outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical aortic valve

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