CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial Predicting lifetime risk for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Chinese population: the China-PAR project Clinical Outcomes Following Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Coronary Angiography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 31 Studies and 17,882 Patients Usefulness of longitudinal reconstructed optical coherence tomography images for predicting the need for the reverse wire technique during coronary bifurcation interventions Prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II trial Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial One or two stents for the distal Left Main bifurcation The DK crush V study - The DK crush V study Good response to tolvaptan shortens hospitalization in patients with congestive heart failure Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Original ResearchVolume 73, Issue 25, July 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Relation to Vascular Risk in the COMPASS Trial

SS Anand, JW Eikelboom, COMPASS Trial Investigators. Keywords: net-clinical benefit; risk stratification; rivaroxaban; vascular disease

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major vascular events in patients with stable vascular disease.

 

OBJECTIVES- The purpose of this study was to identify subsets of patients at higher risk of recurrent vascular events, which may help focus the use of rivaroxaban and aspirin therapy.

 

METHODS - COMPASS patients with vascular disease were risk stratified using 2 methods: the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) atherothrombosis risk score and CART (Classification and Regression Tree) analysis. The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin were compared to aspirin alone over 30 months for the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or vascular amputation; for severe bleeding; and for the net clinical benefit.

 

RESULTS- High-risk patients using the REACH score were those with 2 or more vascular beds affected, history of heart failure (HF), or renal insufficiency, and by CART analysis were those with 2 vascular beds affected, history of HF, or diabetes. Rivaroxaban and aspirin combination reduced the serious vascular event incidence by 25% (4.48% vs. 5.95%, hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.85), equivalent to 23 events prevented per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months, at the cost of a nonsignificant 34% increase in severe bleeding (1.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.88), or 2 events caused per 1,000 patients treated. Among patients with 1 high-risk feature identified from the CART analysis, rivaroxaban and aspirin prevented 33 serious vascular events, whereas in lower-risk patients, rivaroxaban and aspirin treatment led to the avoidance of 10 events per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months.

 

CONCLUSIONS- In patients with vascular disease, further risk stratification can identify higher-risk patients (2 vascular beds affected, HF, renal insufficiency, or diabetes). The net clinical benefit remains favorable for most patients treated with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin.