Chhatwal, Karanjot

Background Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, specifically surgical (SAVR) and transcatheter (TAVR), is among the most frequently performed cardiac interventions globally, yet anticoagulation strategies after implantation remain incompletely defined. Atrial fibrillation, notably prevalent pre- and post-operatively in these patients, substantially amplifies thromboembolic risk and complicates decision-making in an already elderly, frail, and comorbid population. Objectives To critically evaluate current anticoagulation strategies after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement across sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation in both SAVR and TAVR, and to identify evidence gaps and guideline inconsistencies. Methods We conducted a narrative review of major international guidelines (ESC/EACTS 2025, ACC/AHA 2020, and NICE 2021) and key clinical trials on antithrombotic therapy in valve replacement populations. Focus was placed on bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, with mechanical and non-aortic valves excluded. Results Aspirin monotherapy is the most consistently supported strategy after bioprosthetic TAVR in sinus rhythm, though guidelines diverge on duration and recommendation strength. In atrial fibrillation, all three guidelines apply uniform CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc-based frameworks irrespective of AF phenotype, procedural context, or detection modality, reflecting lacking evidence rather than deliberate clinical judgement. No trial has enrolled patients specifically with new-onset post-procedural AF or stratified by AF subtype, and subclinical AF after bioprosthetic AVR remains entirely uncharacterised. Conclusions Guideline divergence reflects a structurally inadequate evidence base rather than genuine clinical equipoise. Individualised decisions informed by procedure type, AF phenotype, frailty, and bleeding risk are required to guide clinical practice, alongside an adequately powered stratified randomised trial incorporating mandatory continuous rhythm monitoring.

Motility disorders, particularly gastroparesis, are prevalent complications following solid organ transplantation, significantly impacting quality of life, nutritional status, graft survival, and mortality. This comprehensive review synthesises evidence from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, management, and prognostic factors across transplant types. Mechanisms include vagal nerve injury (highest in lung transplants, prevalence 40–91%), immunosuppressive effects (e.g., tacrolimus accelerates motility; mycophenolate impairs it), surgical trauma, microbiome dysbiosis (reduced Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio), and metabolic factors like post-transplant diabetes (OR 5.17 in kidney recipients). Pediatric and thoracic recipients face the highest risks, with lung transplant gastroparesis conferring a 2.7-fold increased mortality/retransplantation hazard (p < 0.05). Diagnosis relies on gastric emptying scintigraphy (gold standard, sensitivity 85–95%) and wireless motility capsules (100% sensitivity for delay), while management encompasses prokinetics (60–80% response), endoscopic G-POEM (85% success), gastric electrical stimulation (100% quality-of-life improvement in series), and nutritional support. Prognostic factors include younger age (better intervention response), aetiology (anatomical worse than metabolic), and early therapy success. Outcomes vary: lung recipients experience severe impacts on chronic allograft dysfunction (83% oesophageal motility abnormalities correlate with 66–67% rejection). Future directions emphasise microbiome therapies, AI predictive models (AUC 0.85), and wearables for continuous monitoring. Multidisciplinary approaches are essential to balance immunosuppression with GI management, addressing ethical dilemmas like drug interactions and access disparities. Ultimately, early screening and personalised interventions can mitigate complications, enhancing long-term transplant success.