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
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.
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 求助全文
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.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信