A comparative study of the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high bleeding risk

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1445970
Penghui Liu
{"title":"A comparative study of the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high bleeding risk","authors":"Penghui Liu","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1445970","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveRivaroxaban and dabigatran are approved to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in people with high bleeding risk are unclear.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on NVAF patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2019. These patients had a high risk of bleeding and were taking at least one study medication. The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical benefits by comparing the efficacy and safety risks of these two medicationsResultsA total of 1,301 patients with high bleeding risk were enrolled, including 787 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 514 patients in the dabigatran group. Results of the primary efficacy benefit endpoint were obtained from 104 patients (13.21%) in the rivaroxaban group and 81 (15.76%) patients in the dabigatran group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.860; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.637–1.162; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.327], this indicates that there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with high bleeding risk NVAF. The principal safety end points were observed in 49 (6.23%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 36 (7.00%) patients in the dabigatran group (HR: 0.801 in the rivaroxaban group; 95% CI: 0.512–1.255; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.333), this indicates that there was no a significant difference in reducing fatal bleeding and critical organ bleeding. With respect to secondary efficacy and benefit endpoints, 28 (3.56%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and 26 (5.06%) patients in the dabigatran group died, with an HR of 0.725 (95% CI: 0.425–1.238; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.239); 32 (4.07%) patients in the rivaroxaban group; and 31 (6.03%) patients in the dabigatran group had myocardial infarction (MI), with an HR of 0.668 (95% CI: 0.405–1.102, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.114) in the rivaroxaban group, this indicates that there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing all-cause death and MI.ConclusionsIn NVAF patients with high bleeding risk, there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing stroke and systemic embolism. There was also no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing fatal and critical organ bleeding.Clinical Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trials Registry, identifier ChiCTR2100052454.","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1445970","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveRivaroxaban and dabigatran are approved to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, the clinical benefits of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in people with high bleeding risk are unclear.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on NVAF patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from May 31, 2016 to May 31, 2019. These patients had a high risk of bleeding and were taking at least one study medication. The aim of the study was to evaluate clinical benefits by comparing the efficacy and safety risks of these two medicationsResultsA total of 1,301 patients with high bleeding risk were enrolled, including 787 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 514 patients in the dabigatran group. Results of the primary efficacy benefit endpoint were obtained from 104 patients (13.21%) in the rivaroxaban group and 81 (15.76%) patients in the dabigatran group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.860; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.637–1.162; P = 0.327], this indicates that there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients with high bleeding risk NVAF. The principal safety end points were observed in 49 (6.23%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 36 (7.00%) patients in the dabigatran group (HR: 0.801 in the rivaroxaban group; 95% CI: 0.512–1.255; P = 0.333), this indicates that there was no a significant difference in reducing fatal bleeding and critical organ bleeding. With respect to secondary efficacy and benefit endpoints, 28 (3.56%) patients in the rivaroxaban group and 26 (5.06%) patients in the dabigatran group died, with an HR of 0.725 (95% CI: 0.425–1.238; P = 0.239); 32 (4.07%) patients in the rivaroxaban group; and 31 (6.03%) patients in the dabigatran group had myocardial infarction (MI), with an HR of 0.668 (95% CI: 0.405–1.102, P = 0.114) in the rivaroxaban group, this indicates that there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing all-cause death and MI.ConclusionsIn NVAF patients with high bleeding risk, there was no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in preventing stroke and systemic embolism. There was also no significant difference between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in reducing fatal and critical organ bleeding.Clinical Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trials Registry, identifier ChiCTR2100052454.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利伐沙班和达比加群对出血风险较高的非瓣膜性心房颤动患者临床疗效的比较研究
目的利伐沙班和达比加群经批准用于降低非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者的卒中风险。方法对2016年5月31日至2019年5月31日郑州大学第一附属医院收治的非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者进行回顾性研究。这些患者出血风险较高,且至少服用一种研究药物。研究的目的是通过比较这两种药物的疗效和安全风险来评估临床获益。结果共有1301例出血风险高的患者入组,其中利伐沙班组787例,达比加群组514例。利伐沙班组 104 名患者(13.21%)和达比加群组 81 名患者(15.76%)获得了主要疗效终点[危险比 (HR):0.860;95% 置信区间 (CI):0.637-1.162;P = 0.327],这表明达比加群和利伐沙班在预防高出血风险 NVAF 患者中风和全身性栓塞方面没有显著差异。利伐沙班组 49 例(6.23%)患者和达比加群组 36 例(7.00%)患者观察到了主要安全性终点(HR:利伐沙班组为 0.801;95% CI:0.512-1.255;P = 0.333),这表明在减少致命性出血和关键器官出血方面,利伐沙班和达比加群无显着差异。在次要疗效和获益终点方面,利伐沙班组和达比加群组分别有28例(3.56%)和26例(5.06%)患者死亡,HR分别为0.725(95% CI:0.425-1.238;P = 0.239);利伐沙班组有32例(4.07%)患者发生心肌梗死(MI);达比加群组有31例(6.03%)患者发生心肌梗死(MI),HR分别为0.668(95% CI:0.405-1.102,P=0.114),这表明达比加群和利伐沙班在预防全因死亡和心肌梗死方面没有显著差异。结论在出血风险较高的NVAF患者中,达比加群和利伐沙班在预防卒中和全身性栓塞方面没有显著差异。达比加群与利伐沙班在减少致命性出血和重要器官出血方面也无明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
3529
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers? At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.
期刊最新文献
Pediatric RVOT reconstruction with ePTFE trileaflet valved conduits: a dual-center Chinese study First manifestation of cardiovascular disease according to age and sex in a Mediterranean country Outcomes after noncardiac surgery in patients with left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review A comparative study of femoral artery and combined femoral and axillary artery cannulation in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients Serum insulin-like growth factor-1 as a potential prognostic biomarker for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1