Anjan Talukdar1, S Keisin Wang1, Lauren Czosnowski2, Nassim Mokraoui1, Alok Gupta1, Andres Fajardo1, Michael Dalsing1, Raghu Motaganahalli3. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind; Department of Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind. Electronic address: rmotagan@iupui.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. RESULTS: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.
OBJECTIVE:Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. METHODS: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. RESULTS: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.