Oral Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin After inferior Vena cava Filter Implantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 2.3 4区医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY

Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/10760296241256938

Ilya Schastlivtsev, Aleksey Pankov, Sergey Tsaplin, Evgeny Stepanov, Sergey Zhuravlev, Kirill Lobastov

{"title":"Oral Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin After inferior Vena cava Filter Implantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Ilya Schastlivtsev, Aleksey Pankov, Sergey Tsaplin, Evgeny Stepanov, Sergey Zhuravlev, Kirill Lobastov","doi":"10.1177/10760296241256938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implantation.Method: This retrospective analysis includes data from 100 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent IVC filter implantation due to a free-floating thrombus (n = 64), thrombus propagation (n = 8), or acute bleeding (n = 8) on therapeutic anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis (n = 8), or had previously implanted filter with DVT recurrence. Patients were treated with warfarin (n = 41) or rivaroxaban (n = 59) for 3-12 months. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding events were assessed at 12 months follow-up.Results: Three (7.3%) cases of VTE recurrence without IVC filter occlusion occurred on warfarin and none on rivaroxaban. The only (2.4%) major bleeding occurred on warfarin. Three (5.1%) clinically relevant non-major bleedings were detected on rivaroxaban. No significant differences existed between groups when full and propensity scores matched datasets were compared.Conclusions: Rivaroxaban seems not less effective and safe than warfarin after IVC filter implantation.","PeriodicalId":10335,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis","volume":"30 ","pages":"10760296241256938"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11113020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10760296241256938","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin after inferior vena cava (IVC) filter implantation.

Method: This retrospective analysis includes data from 100 patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent IVC filter implantation due to a free-floating thrombus (n = 64), thrombus propagation (n = 8), or acute bleeding (n = 8) on therapeutic anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis (n = 8), or had previously implanted filter with DVT recurrence. Patients were treated with warfarin (n = 41) or rivaroxaban (n = 59) for 3-12 months. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence and bleeding events were assessed at 12 months follow-up.

Results: Three (7.3%) cases of VTE recurrence without IVC filter occlusion occurred on warfarin and none on rivaroxaban. The only (2.4%) major bleeding occurred on warfarin. Three (5.1%) clinically relevant non-major bleedings were detected on rivaroxaban. No significant differences existed between groups when full and propensity scores matched datasets were compared.

Conclusions: Rivaroxaban seems not less effective and safe than warfarin after IVC filter implantation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

下腔静脉滤器植入术后口服利伐沙班与华法林的对比：一项回顾性队列研究

目的：评估下腔静脉滤器植入术后利伐沙班与华法林相比的疗效和安全性：评估下腔静脉（IVC）滤器植入术后利伐沙班与华法林相比的疗效和安全性：这项回顾性分析包括100例深静脉血栓（DVT）患者的数据，这些患者因自由浮动血栓（64例）、血栓扩散（8例）或急性出血（8例）接受治疗性抗凝、导管引导溶栓（8例）或曾植入滤器但DVT复发而接受IVC滤器植入术。患者接受华法林（41 人）或利伐沙班（59 人）治疗 3-12 个月。随访12个月时对无症状静脉血栓栓塞症（VTE）复发和出血事件进行评估：结果：使用华法林治疗时，有3例（7.3%）VTE复发，但没有发生IVC滤器闭塞，而使用利伐沙班治疗时没有发生VTE复发。唯一一次（2.4%）大出血发生在华法林。利伐沙班发现了三例（5.1%）临床相关的非大出血。在比较完整数据集和倾向评分匹配数据集时，各组之间不存在明显差异：利伐沙班在植入 IVC 过滤器后的有效性和安全性似乎并不低于华法林。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis 医学-外周血管病

CiteScore

4.40

自引率

3.40%

发文量

150

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： CATH is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal that addresses the practical clinical and laboratory issues involved in managing bleeding and clotting disorders, especially those related to thrombosis, hemostasis, and vascular disorders. CATH covers clinical trials, studies on etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of thrombohemorrhagic disorders.