ArticleOpen heart2025
Efficacy and safety of anti-thrombotic therapy after surgical mitral valve repair: a scoping review.
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMitral 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionBased 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.