With improvements in treatment of congenital heart disease more paediatric patients are surviving with palliative or corrective interventions during childhood, thus becoming adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). Overall, the ACHD population is at a higher risk of arrhythmias and stroke. The abnormal structure and function of their corrected hearts suggests that in addition to established stroke risk factors, such as prior stroke or older age, additional stroke risk factors need to be considered to determine the risk and establish the indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC) in ACHD patients. In structurally normal hearts non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer at least equal stroke prevention with a better safety profile compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or pulmonary embolism. Current guidelines recommend NOACs in ACHD patients with simple lesions and indication for OAC, while there is less certainty about their safety in ACHD patients with moderate or complex congenital heart disease such as patients with transposition of the great arteries (TGA) after atrial switch operation (Senning or Mustard operation), Fontan circulation or congenital corrected transposition of the great arteries (ccTGA). This review summarises the available evidence characterising stroke risk in patients with ACHD and the use of anticoagulants and interventional therapies to reduce that risk.

Introduction: Non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are known to have advantages over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, more than half of patients are still treated with VKAs. The absence of direct comparisons amongst NOACs and the insufficient evidence in some clinical situations could explain, at least in part, this predominance of VKAs. The aims of our study were: 1) to analyze the opinion of an expert panel on the role of NOACs in different clinical scenarios; 2) to elaborate specific consensus recommendations for the management of NOACs for each one of these situations.Patients and methods: An online survey was created covering distinct aspects of the use of oral anticoagulants in various clinical settings. A two-round modified Delphi approach was used.Results: Forty-eight experts responded to the survey. Consensus was reached on 58% (48/83) of the items. The panelists concluded that the term non-valvular AF should be avoided. In most clinical settings NOACs were preferred over VKAs. Once daily NOACs were preferred in elderly patients to improve therapeutic compliance and, in those over the age of 85, edoxaban could be the best choice. Edoxaban and apixaban were the favorites for patients with AF and moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the case of patients on triple antithrombotic therapy due to AF and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) the lowest effective NOAC dose should be used.Conclusion: Our study emphasizes that there are several clinical circumstances in patients with AF requiring complex decisions about anticoagulation treatment and offers some recommendations based on the consensus reached by an expert panel.

There is limited evidence on patients\' adherence and the impact of the prescribed dosing regimen in non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). We aimed to assess secondary adherence to NOACs and to determine the impact of the dosing regimen in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Patients using a NOAC between 2009 and 2013 were identified from the nation-wide Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and the Dutch regional IADB.nl database. Patients using a consistent dosage for at least 180 consecutive days were included. Adherence was calculated using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and adjusted for overlapping dates. Adherence was defined as a MPR ≥0.8. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a MPR ≥0.9. Logistic regression was performed to compare secondary adherence and to explore the influence of the dosing regimen.
A total of 5254 Swedish and 430 Dutch NOAC users were included. The mean MPR was 96.0% (SD 7.8%) in Sweden and 95.1% (SD 10.1%) in the Netherlands. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that a twice daily regimen had a lower likelihood of being secondary adherent compared to a once daily regimen in Sweden (odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.12-0.35]).
The influence of selection bias introduced by the inclusion criterion of ≥2 dispensations covering at least 180 days could not be excluded.
This study demonstrated that secondary adherence was high in this specific setting among patients with at least two initial dispensations of a NOAC covering a minimum of 180 days. The use of NOACs in a once daily regimen showed higher adherence compared to a twice daily regimen.