Devendra Saksena1, Yugal K Mishra2, S Muralidharan3, Vivek Kanhere4, Pankaj Srivastava5, C P Srivastava6. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, India. 2. Manipal Hospital, New Delhi, India. 3. GKNM Hospital, Coimbatore, India. 4. Chirayu Health Centre, Bhopal, India. 5. Divine Heart & Multi-speciality Hospital, Lucknow, India. 6. Narayana Hrudayalaya, Jaipur, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Valvular heart disease (VHD) patients after prosthetic valve implantation are at risk of thromboembolic events. Follow-up care of patients with prosthetic valve has a paramount role in reducing the morbidity and mortality. Currently, in India, there is quintessential need to stream line the follow-up care of prosthetic valve patients. This mandates the development of a consensus guideline for the antithrombotic therapy in VHD patients post prosthetic valve implantation. METHODS: A national level panel was constituted comprising 13 leading cardio care experts in India who thoroughly reviewed the up to date literature, formulated the recommendations, and developed the consensus document. Later on, extensive discussions were held on this draft and the recommendations in 8 regional meetings involving 79 additional experts from the cardio care in India, to arrive at a consensus. The final consensus document is developed relying on the available evidence and/or majority consensus from all the meetings. RESULTS: The panel recommended vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy with individualized target international normalized ratio (INR) in VHD patients after prosthetic valve implantation. The panel opined that management of prosthetic valve complications should be personalized on the basis of type of complications. In addition, the panel recommends to distinguish individuals with various co-morbidities and attend them appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant therapy with VKA seems to be an effective option post prosthetic valve implantation in VHD patients. However, the role for non-VKA oral therapy in prosthetic valve patients and the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with bioprosthetic valve need to be studied extensively.
PURPOSE: Valvular heart disease (VHD) patients after prosthetic valve implantation are at risk of thromboembolic events. Follow-up care of patients with prosthetic valve has a paramount role in reducing the morbidity and mortality. Currently, in India, there is quintessential need to stream line the follow-up care of prosthetic valve patients. This mandates the development of a consensus guideline for the antithrombotic therapy in VHD patients post prosthetic valve implantation. METHODS: A national level panel was constituted comprising 13 leading cardio care experts in India who thoroughly reviewed the up to date literature, formulated the recommendations, and developed the consensus document. Later on, extensive discussions were held on this draft and the recommendations in 8 regional meetings involving 79 additional experts from the cardio care in India, to arrive at a consensus. The final consensus document is developed relying on the available evidence and/or majority consensus from all the meetings. RESULTS: The panel recommended vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy with individualized target international normalized ratio (INR) in VHD patients after prosthetic valve implantation. The panel opined that management of prosthetic valve complications should be personalized on the basis of type of complications. In addition, the panel recommends to distinguish individuals with various co-morbidities and attend them appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant therapy with VKA seems to be an effective option post prosthetic valve implantation in VHD patients. However, the role for non-VKA oral therapy in prosthetic valve patients and the safety and efficacy of novel oral anticoagulants in patients with bioprosthetic valve need to be studied extensively.
Authors: John D Rozich; William D Edwards; Richard D Hanna; Dawn M Laffey; Gilbert H Johnson; Kyle W Klarich Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Michael Nagler; Lucas M Bachmann; Pirmin Schmid; Pascale Raddatz Müller; Walter A Wuillemin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 3.240