ObjectiveTo evaluate the anticoagulation efficacy of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). MethodsA computer-based search was conducted on PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, and VIP databases to identify studies on the application of NOACs and VKAs in high-risk AF patients after TAVI. The search period was from database inception to January 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. ResultsA total of 7 studies involving 24 592 patients were included. The meta-analysis results showed that compared to patients using VKAs, those treated with NOACs had a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality [RR=0.74, 95%CI (0.58, 0.94), P=0.01]. Subgroup analysis indicated that when the follow-up period was less than 1 year, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the NOAC and VKA groups [RR=0.57, 95%CI (0.17, 1.88), P=0.35]; however, when the follow-up period was ≥1 year, the VKA group had a higher all-cause mortality rate than the NOAC group, with a statistically significant difference [RR=0.73, 95%CI (0.57, 0.95), P=0.02]. No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding early stroke [RR=0.50, 95%CI (0.19, 1.28), P=0.15], stroke during follow-up [RR=1.04, 95%CI (0.88, 1.22), P=0.64], bleeding [RR=0.94, 95%CI (0.73, 1.21), P=0.61], major or life-threatening bleeding [RR=0.80, 95%CI (0.49, 1.31), P=0.38], or acute kidney injury [RR=0.51, 95%CI (0.16, 1.59), P=0.24]. Conclusion Compared to VKAs, the use of NOACs in patients with high-risk AF undergoing TAVI may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, especially during long-term anticoagulation therapy, potentially offering greater benefits. However, further evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed to confirm these findings.
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven to reduce surgical injuries, promote recovery, and improve postoperative outcomes in different types of surgeries. A core principle of ERAS is to provide programmatic evidence-based perioperative interventions. An international multidisciplinary expert group provided a statement on clinical practice in each thematic area of ERAS by obtaining a list of potential ERAS elements, and reviewing literature. The version 2024 of "Perioperative care in cardiac surgery: A joint consensus statement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Cardiac Society, ERAS International Society, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)" is developed from the version 2019 of "Guidelines for perioperative care in cardiac surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society recommendations". The consensus statement group was composed of multidisciplinary experts such as cardiac surgeons, anesthesiologists, intensive care physicians, and nurses, based on personal ERAS knowledge and experience. This article interprets the changes and new statements in the 2024 consensus, which can provide a foundation for the best perioperative practices for adult cardiac surgery patients.