Background International guidelines recommend the use of a vitamin K antagonist (VKA, e.g. warfarin) for the first three months after mitral repair as a Class IIa recommendation with Level of Evidence C. High rates of atrial fibrillation, thrombogenicity of the non-endothelialised repair components, and high rates of antiplatelet resistance are cited as rationale. However, surveys of practice indicate that surgeon compliance is low, suggesting uncertainty of the evidence. We sought to establish the best current evidence by conducting a systematic review as a precursor to a randomised trial. Methods We included prospective randomised and retrospective observational studies of adult patients undergoing mitral valve repair with no other indications for anticoagulation. Studies had to compare a VKA to a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC), anti-platelet or placebo/null treatment ("Other"). Outcomes had to include thromboembolic complications, major bleeding or mortality within three months. The Cochrane Register, Medline, Embase and Clinical Trials Registries were checked. Risk of Bias assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool as part of the GRADE Pro methodology. Quantitative synthesis was agreed following review of the methodology and a random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method employed. Results There were no randomised controlled trials comparing VKA to other treatment strategies. Six observational studies comprising 5291 patients (2925 receiving VKA, 807 antiplatelet, 104 NOAC and 1455 null treatment) were included. Four studies reporting early thromboembolic risk found that the use of a VKA may not be associated with a reduction in risk (relative risk [RR] 0.54, 95% CI 0.13 - 2.35, p=0.41, I2 = 68%, overall certainty of evidence = very low). Three studies reporting late thromboembolism also showed that use of VKA may not be associated with risk reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.24, p=0.37, I2 = 23%). Two studies reported on early risks of major bleeding and found VKA treatment had very uncertain effects (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 - 1.02, p=0.06, I2=0%, certainty of evidence = very low). Late bleeding reported by four studies was uncertain but seemed to show no risk reduction with VKA (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.37 - 2.52, p=0.95, I2=73%). Three studies found an unclear effect of VKA use on early mortality (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 - 1.51, p=0.17, I2=35%, certainty of evidence = low). Two studies comparing VKA with antiplatelets and no thromboprophylaxis respectively, showed there may be risk reduction in late mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, p=0.0006, I2=0%, certainty of evidence = very low), although this effect was weighted by a single study. Conclusion There is insufficient good quality evidence to inform anticoagulation, anti-platelet or null treatment practices following mitral valve repair. A high-quality trial is therefore required in this setting, with particular methodological focus on aspects found to increase risk of bias in current studies.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This is a systematic review of the literature that used only published (summary, ie not individual patient level) data that is all referenced within the document and openly available on PubMed.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript