Cardiovascular Outcomes For People Using Anticoagulation Strategies Research Articles

Results of the COMPASS Trial Analyzed Using Win Ratio Compared With Conventional Analytic Approaches

BackgroundWin ratio (WR) is a newer analytic approach for trials with composite end points that accounts for the relative importance of individual components. Our objective was to compare the results of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial analyzed using WR compared with conventional statistical approaches. MethodsWe used an unmatched WR analysis for first and total (first plus recurrent) events to examine effects of rivaroxaban with aspirin and rivaroxaban alone vs aspirin alone on primary efficacy (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction), safety (modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding), and net clinical benefit (primary efficacy plus fatal or critical organ bleeding) end points. We compared the WR results with those obtained using the Cox proportional hazards regression model for first events and Anderson-Gill method for total events. We calculated the win difference to estimate absolute treatment effects. ResultsThe WR approach produced results consistent with those obtained using conventional statistical methods for the primary composite end point (first event: WR, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.52]; Cox hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; total [first plus recurrent] events: WR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.52]; Anderson-Gill hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.54]) as well as for main safety and net clinical benefit end points. The absolute benefits of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone calculated using the win difference were greatest in those with multiple high-risk features. ConclusionsReanalysis of the COMPASS trial results using WR produced results that were consistent with those obtained using conventional statistical approaches. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT01776424

Perioperative management and outcomes in patients receiving low-dose rivaroxaban and/or aspirin: a subanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial

BackgroundNo study has investigated the perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients who are receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 81 to 100 mg daily. ObjectiveTo assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. To assess perioperative management and outcomes in patients who are receiving low-dose rivaroxaban, 2.5 mg twice-daily, and low-dose ASA, 81 to 100 mg daily. MethodsSubanalysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial was performed to assess perioperative management and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary or peripheral artery disease who were randomized to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA 100 mg daily. Patients studied required a surgery/procedure during the trial. The study outcomes, which included myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, acute limb ischemia, bleeding, and death, were assessed according to treatment allocation. ResultsThere were 2632 patients studied (mean age, 68 years; 80% male) who had a surgery/procedure, comprising percutaneous coronary interventions (∼43%), carotid or other arterial angioplasty (∼15%), pacemaker or internal cardiac defibrillator implantation (∼9%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (∼7%). Perioperative study drug management varied, with about one-third of patients not interrupting study drug and the remainder interrupting it between 1 and ≥10 days preprocedure. The incidences of adverse outcomes across treatment groups were 12.7% to 15.3% for myocardial ischemia, 0.8% to 1.2% for stroke, 0.1% to 0.2% for venous thromboembolism, and 3.1% to 4.2% for any bleeding. There was no statistically significant difference in outcome rates across treatment groups. ConclusionIn patients in the COMPASS trial who required a surgery/procedure, there was no significant difference in perioperative adverse outcomes whether patients were receiving rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day and ASA 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day, or ASA alone.

Net clinical benefit of extended dual pathway inhibition according to baseline risk in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a COMPASS substudy.

Guidelines recommend extended dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with aspirin and rivaroxaban in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) at high ischaemic risk. The CHADS-P2A2RC score improves risk prediction and enables antithrombotic treatment allocation in these patients. This study evaluated the net clinical benefit of DPI treatment according to baseline risk as classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score in patients with CCS included in the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial. COMPASS patients with CCS (n=14 670), randomized to aspirin alone or DPI, were stratified according to cardiovascular risk using the CHADS-P2A2RC score. Endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, fatal/critical organ bleeding, and composite adverse events (MACE and bleeding). Net clinical benefit was the 30-month risk difference of MACE and bleeding. Thirty-month incidences of MACE [7.9% vs. 3.9%, hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83-2.18] and fatal/critical organ bleeding (1.2% vs. 0.8%, HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.06-1.92) were higher in high-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC≥4) than in low/moderate-risk (CHADS-P2A2RC<4) patients. DPI reduced MACE (low/moderate risk: HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.82; high risk: HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.99, P for interaction 0.09) and all-cause death (low/moderate risk: HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91; high risk: HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65-1.00, P for interaction 0.29), without substantially increasing fatal/critical organ bleeding (low/moderate risk: HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.72-2.53; high risk: HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.73-1.90, P for interaction 0.73). DPI provided net clinical benefit of similar magnitude in low/moderate-risk (-1.81%, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.62) and high-risk (-1.96%, 95% CI -3.60 to -0.33) CCS patients. As classified by the CHADS-P2A2RC score, low/moderate- and high-risk patients with CCS derived similar net clinical benefit and reduction in all-cause death from DPI treatment.

Generalisability of trials on antithrombotic treatment intensification in patients with cardiovascular disease

ObjectiveAssessment of generalisability of guideline-informing trials on antithrombotic treatment intensification to real-world patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).MethodsInclusion and exclusion criteria of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS),...

Who may benefit from low-dose Rivaroxaban plus Aspirin? Practical implications for outpatients with cardiovascular disease.

Despite the availability of effective preventive therapies based on guidelines, patients with vascular diseases continue to be at a high risk for recurrent ischemic events. Therefore, novel therapeutic strategies are required to further reduce the residual risk present in these patients at high risk. Platelet aggregation and fibrin organization are involved in arterial thrombosis, and rivaroxaban is capable of targeting both processes and has a synergistic effect when used in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), the so-called dual pathway inhibition (DPI). The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that the DPI (a combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg/bid (vascular dose) and ASA 100 mg once daily), reduced cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction by 24% in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). Subsequently, the VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along with Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for PAD) trial confirmed the effectiveness of the vascular dose of rivaroxaban in patients with PAD after lower-extremity revascularization, compared to ASA alone. Therefore, DPI is recommended in patients with CAD (+/- PAD) or symptomatic PAD at high ischaemic risk. The purpose of this review is to examine the clinical benefits and practical implications of DPI in CAD and PAD patients.

Is the COMPASS pointing towards clinical equipoise for the right internal mammary artery?

The right internal mammary artery (RIMA) has been considered the second-best graft after the left internal mammary artery by many. Recent guidelines have awarded class IIa recommendation for using the RIMA. The findings of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS)-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) sub-study showed a high graft failure rate for the RIMA. The findings of the study should initiate further scientific scrutiny of the RIMA and studies need to be carried out for further evaluation of the RIMA as a conduit.

Dietary intake and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic vascular disease: insights from the COMPASS trial cohort.

Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE). There are limited data regarding dietary patterns and the risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in CAD and PAD patients. We aimed to identify dietary patterns associated with MACE and MALE in patients with CAD and/or PAD. We analysed data collected from patients enrolled into the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, in which diet was assessed by a short food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline. Two dietary pattern scores, the modified Alternate Healthy Eating Index (mAHEI) and Mediterranean Diet Score (mMDS), were calculated. We tested the association between mAHEI and mMDS and the incidence of MACE and/or MALE. The mean mAHEI score was 23.0 ± 7.7 (out of 70) overall and was similar comparing CAD and PAD patients. The incidence of MACE or MALE was 6.3% in the lowest diet quality quartile (as assessed by mAHEI) compared with 4.2% in the highest quartile over 30 months. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratio of a low diet quality (Quartile 1) compared with the highest (Quartile 4) for MACE or MALE was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.08-1.49; P = 0.004, Q1 vs. Q4). This excess hazard was primarily driven by higher MACE in both the CAD and PAD cohorts. Poor diet quality as assessed by the mAHEI is independently associated with a higher risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD.

Conduit selection and early graft failure in coronary artery bypass surgery: A post hoc analysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) coronary artery bypass grafting study.

Relative rates of early graft failure and conduit selection in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery remain controversial. Therefore, we sought to determine the incidence and determinants of graft failure of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA), radial artery, saphenous vein, and right internal mammary artery (RIMA) 1year after CABG surgery. A post hoc analysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) CABG study, involving patients from 83 centers in 22 countries. We completed an analysis of 3480 grafts from 1068 patients who underwent CABG surgery with complete computed tomography angiography data. The primary outcome was graft failure as diagnosed by computed tomography angiography 1year after surgery. Graft failure occurred in 6.4% (68/1068) for LIMA, 9.9% (9/91) for radial artery, 10.4% (232/2239) for saphenous vein, and 26.8% (22/82) for RIMA grafts. The RIMA had a greater rate of graft failure (26.8%) than radial artery (9.9%) and veins (10.4%) (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-5.57; P=.008 and adjusted odds ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.21; P=.001, respectively). In this international trial dataset, LIMA and radial artery performed as expected, whereas vein grafts performed better. However, high rates of RIMA failure are worrisome and highlight the need for a thorough evaluation of the patency and safety of the RIMA in CABG surgery.

A hybrid automated event adjudication system for clinical trials.

In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

Eligibility and Implementation of Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombosis in Clinical Practice-Insights From the CANHEART Study.

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial decreased major adverse cardiovascular events with very low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease. We examined the eligibility and potential real-world impact of this strategy on the COMPASS-eligible population. Methods and Results COMPASS eligibility criteria were applied to the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) registry, a population-based cohort of Ontario adults. We compared 5-year major adverse cardiovascular eventsand major bleeding rates stratified by COMPASS eligibility and by clinical risk factors. We applied COMPASS trial rivaroxaban/aspirin arm hazard ratios to estimate the potential impact on the COMPASS-eligible cohort. Among 362 797 patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, 38% were deemed eligible, 47% ineligible, and 15% indeterminate. Among eligible patients, a greater number of risk factors was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes, whereas bleeding rates increased minimally. Over 5 years, applying COMPASS treatment effects to eligible patients resulted in a 2.4% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and a number needed to treat of 42, and a 1.3% absolute risk increase of major bleeding and number needed to harm (NNH) of 77. Those with at least 2 risk factors had a 3.0% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (number needed to treat =34) and a 1.6% absolute risk increase of major bleeding (number needed to harm =61). Conclusions Implementation of very-low-dose rivaroxaban therapy would potentially impact 2 in 5 patients with atherosclerotic disease in Ontario. Eligible individuals with 2 comorbidities represent a high-risk subgroup that may derive the greatest benefit-to-risk ratio. Selection of patients with high-risk predisposing factors appears appropriate in routine practice.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events

In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown. To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events. This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017. Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily). The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared. A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12). This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

DIETARY INTAKE AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC VASCULAR DISEASE IN THE COMPASS TRIAL

DIETARY INTAKE AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC VASCULAR DISEASE IN THE COMPASS TRIAL

The cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in the COMPASS trial.

The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5mg BID with aspirin 100mg was more effective than aspirin 100mg daily alone for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban using patient-level data from the COMPASS trial. We performed an in-trial analysis and extrapolated our results for 33 years using a two-state Markov model with a 1-year cycle length. Hospitalization events, procedures, and study drugs were documented for patients. We applied country-specific (Canada, France, and Germany) direct healthcare system costs (in USD) to healthcare resources consumed by patients. Average cost per patient during the trial (mean follow-up of 23 months), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost-effectiveness were calculated. Costs of events and procedures were reduced with rivaroxaban 2.5mg BID with aspirin. The addition of rivaroxaban 2.5mg BID increased total costs for the combination group. Over a lifetime horizon (in trial +33 years), rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with 1.17 QALYs gained, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $3946/QALY, $9962/QALY, and $10264/QALY in Canada, France, and Germany, respectively. PAD and polyvascular disease subgroups had lower ICERs. Rivaroxaban 2.5mg twice daily plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduces direct healthcare costs. After acquisition costs of rivaroxaban, the lifetime cost-effectiveness of 2.5mg twice daily plus aspirin is highly cost-effective in Canada, France, and Germany.(COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424).

Long-Term Treatment with the Combination of Rivaroxaban and Aspirin in Patients with Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease: Outcomes During the Open Label Extension of the COMPASS trial.

To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5mg twice daily and aspirin 100mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE). Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination. In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

Direktni oralni antikoagulansi i periferna arterijska bolest

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a disease of the arteries of the lower extremities and represents a global health problem with an increasing prevalence rate. Evidence for the use of standard anticoagulant therapy in patients with PAB is limited. Direct oral anticoagulants are selective inhibitors of activated coagulation factor X and thrombin, thereby blocking the common pathway of the coagulation cascade and preventing fibrin formation. In addition to their procoagulant role, these drugs potentially participate in the regulation of the process of inflammation and tissue fibrosis, which may inhibit the progression of atherosclerotic plaque. The first large study examining the effects of DOAC in patients with atherosclerosis was COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies). This study showed the first encouraging results, although the design was not adapted exclusively to patients with PAD. The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes of ASA Along with Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for PAD) study laid the groundwork for the use of low doses of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with PAB after revascularization. The applicability of the results of the COMPASS and VOYAGER PAD studies in everyday practice is still questionable. There is clear evidence that the use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with the peripheral arterial disease may play an important role in the secondary prevention of adverse cardiovascular events, with an acceptable risk of hemorrhagic complications. Additional studies are needed to clarify which groups of patients these drugs have the greatest effect on, in everyday practice.

Skeletonized vs Pedicled Internal Mammary Artery Graft Harvesting in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

The relative safety and patency of skeletonized vs pedicled internal mammary artery grafts in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are unknown. To investigate the association of skeletonized vs pedicled harvesting with internal mammary artery graft patency and clinical outcomes 1 year after CABG surgery. This study was a post hoc analysis of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) clinical trial, which enrolled 27 395 patients from 602 centers in 33 countries from March 2013 through May 2016. Eligibility criteria for the trial included CABG surgery for coronary artery disease with at least 2 grafts implanted and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min. A total of 1002 of 1448 patients were randomized to the CABG arm of the COMPASS trial and underwent skeletonized (282 [28.1%]) or pedicled (720 [71.9%]) internal mammary artery harvesting. The patients had evaluable angiography results 1 year after surgery. Data were analyzed from October 11, 2019, to May 14, 2020. Patients underwent graft harvesting with either the pedicled technique or skeletonized technique. The primary outcome was graft occlusion 1 year after CABG surgery, as assessed by computed tomography angiography. A total of 1002 patients underwent skeletonized (282 [28.1%]; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [8.1] years; 229 men [81.2%]; 194 White patients [68.8%]) or pedicled (720 [71.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.8 [7.6] years; 603 men [83.8%]; 455 White patients [63.2%]) internal mammary artery harvesting. Rates of internal mammary artery graft occlusion 1 year after CABG surgery were higher in the skeletonized group than in the pedicled group (33 of 344 [9.6%] vs 30 of 764 [3.9%]; graft-level adjusted odds ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.39-4.20; P = .002), including the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery (21 of 289 [7.3%] vs 25 of 725 [3.4%]; graft-level adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.14-3.88, P = .02). After a mean follow-up of 23 months, skeletonized graft harvesting was also associated with a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (20 [7.1%] vs 15 [2.1%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.53-6.67; P = .002) and repeated revascularization (14 [5.0%] vs 10 [1.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.10-6.88; P = .03). This post hoc analysis of the COMPASS randomized clinical trial found that harvesting of the internal mammary artery during CABG surgery using a skeletonized technique was associated with a higher rate of graft occlusion and worse clinical outcomes than the traditional pedicled technique. Future randomized clinical trials are needed to establish the safety and patency of the skeletonized technique. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

Risk stratification of cardiovascular complications using CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores in chronic atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

BackgroundThe COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We explored whether CHA2DS2-VASc or CHADS2 scores, well-validated tools for assessing risk of thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation, can identify vascular patients at highest risk of recurrent events who may derive greatest benefits of treatment.MethodsPredictive accuracies of the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores for MACE, were assessed in this analysis of the COMPASS trial. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative risk were used to compare the effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n = 9152) with aspirin alone (n = 9126) according to risk scores.ResultsHigh CHA2DS2-VASc (6–9) or CHADS2 (3–6) scores were associated with over three times greater absolute risk of MACE compared with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1–2 or CHADS2 score of 0. The effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone were consistent across CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 score categories for MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit, with greatest reduction in MACE observed in patients treated for 30 months with highest CHADS2 score (3–6) (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.53–0.86, p = 0.0012, 25 events per 1000 patients prevented).ConclusionThe CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores can be used in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD to identify patients who are at highest risk of MACE. Those identified at highest risk by CHADS2 scores had greatest benefit from dual pathway inhibition with rivaroxaban plus aspirin.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01776424

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Obese and Overweight Patients With Vascular Disease in the COMPASS Trial

BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants are administered in fixed doses irrespective of body weight, but guidelines recommend against their use in patients with extremes of body weight. ObjectivesThis study determined the effects of dual-pathway inhibition antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg/day) compared with aspirin Halone across a range of patient body mass indexes (BMIs) and body weights. MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, which included patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied in relation to BMI: (normal 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m2, overweight 25 ≤BMI <30 kg/m2, obese ≥30 kg/m2) and body weight (≤70 kg, 70 < weight ≤90 kg, and >90 kg; as well as ≤120 kg vs. >120 kg). ResultsAmong 27,395 randomized patients, 6,459 (24%) had normal BMI, 12,047 (44%) were overweight, and 8,701 (32%) were obese. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin produced a consistent reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, irrespective of BMI or body weight. For 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m2: 3.5% vs. 5.0%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.58 to 0.90); 25 ≤ BMI <30 kg/m2: 4.3% vs. 5.1%; HR: 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.66 to 0.96); BMI ≥30 kg/m2: 4.2% vs. 6.1%; HR: 0.71 (95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86). For body weight ≤70 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.75 (95% CrI: 0.62 to 0.91); 70 < weight ≤90 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.76 (95% CrI: 0.65 to 0.89); >90 kg: 4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR: 0.74 (95% CrI: 0.61 to 0.90). Effects on bleeding, mortality, and net clinical benefit were consistent irrespective of BMI or bodyweight. ConclusionsThe effects of dual-pathway antithrombotic therapy are consistent irrespective of BMI or body weight, suggesting no need for dose adjustments in the ranges of weights and BMI of patients enrolled in the COMPASS trial. Further studies need to address this problem in relation to greater extremes of body weight. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424)

Clinical implications and cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban in patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease in the Netherlands

Background Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at substantial risk of atherothrombotic events. The COMPASS trial showed that patients with stable CAD or PAD experienced significant benefits after treatment with rivaroxaban in combination with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with ASA alone. This paper aims to provide insight into the clinical and economic consequences of treatment with rivaroxaban from a Dutch societal perspective. Methods The clinical and economic implications of rivaroxaban in terms of the number of events prevented, costs, the incremental cost per life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were determined based on a cost-effectiveness model for patients with stable CAD or PAD and in high-risk subgroups (i.e. patients with CAD and PAD, CAD and prior myocardial infarction and renal impairment, CAD and heart failure) using results from the Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. Results Patients treated with rivaroxaban have an expected increased discounted life expectancy of 0.67 years. In high-risk groups discounted incremental life expectancy ranged from 1.33 to 1.90 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the full COMPASS population was €9,760/LYG and €12,033/QALY, whereas, for high-risk subgroups of patients with underlying conditions, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from €2,966/LYG to €5,052/LYG and from €3,940/QALY to €6,815/QALY. Results from the sensitivity analyses revealed that the model results were robust to variations in single or multiple input parameters at once. Conclusions The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is a cost-effective treatment option in stable CAD or PAD patients. Rivaroxaban in combination with ASA is even more cost-effective in high-risk subgroups.

CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores for risk stratification of major adverse cardiovascular events in the COMPASS trial

Abstract Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial demonstrated that the combination therapy of rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Purpose We assessed whether the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65–75 years, and sex category) and CHADS2 (CHF, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke/TIA) scores used to predict the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, can be used identify vascular patients at highest risk of recurrent events who may derive greatest benefits of treatment. Methods In COMPASS patients, the predictive accuracy of CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores were assessed for MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit using Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative risk and absolute risk differences were used to examine the effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone over 30 months according to risk score categories. Results In 27,395 participants with CAD and/or PAD, a high CHA2DS2-VASc score (6–9) was associated with 3 times greater absolute risk of MACE compared to a low score (1–2) (hazard ratio=3.39, 95% CI: 2.54–4.51, p&amp;lt;0.0001). The effects of combination therapy with rivaroxaban and aspirin on MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit were consistent across CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 score categories, with the greatest benefit in those with the highest risk scores (Figure 1). The greatest reduction in MACE with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared to aspirin only was observed in patients treated for 30 months with highest CHA2DS2-VASc score (6–9) (23 events per 1000 patients prevented) or highest CHADS2 score (3–6) (25 events per 1000 patients prevented). There was increased bleeding in patients with higher CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores, but net clinical benefit was preserved across all risk categories and was greatest in those with the highest risk scores. Conclusion The CHA2DS2-VASc or CHADS2 scores can be used in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD to identify patients who are at highest risk of MACE, and therefore likely to achieve the greatest benefit of dual pathway inhibition with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): This study was sponsored by Bayer AG.