4.7 Article

Effectiveness and Safety of Standard- and Low-Dose Rivaroxaban in Asians With Atrial Fibrillation

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.084

关键词

bleeding; embolism; myocardial infarction; non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; stroke

资金

  1. Taipei Medical University
  2. National Science Council in Taiwan [MOST 106-2314-B-038-081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Low-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg/day) has been widely used in Asia for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), although there is a lack of evidence regarding its effectiveness. In Asians, it is unclear whether low-dose rivaroxaban is equally effective as that of the standard dose or is associated with less bleeding risk. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of standard-dose (15 or 20 mg/day) and low-dose (10 mg/day) rivaroxaban in Asians with AF. METHODS Using data files from the National Health Insurance Research Database between May 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015, a retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted in patients diagnosed with AF or atrial flutter and treated with low-or standard-dose rivaroxaban. Patients were followed up until the first occurrence of the study outcome or the end of the observation period (December 31, 2015). RESULTS Among 6,558 eligible patients, a total of 2,373 and 4,185 patients took low-and standard-dose rivaroxaban, respectively. Compared to standard-dose rivaroxaban, low-dose rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction (subdistribution hazard ratio: 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 4.52), with similar risk of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Compared to standard-dose rivaroxaban, low-dose rivaroxaban in Asian patients with AF was associated with similar risks of thromboembolism and bleeding except myocardial infarction. (C) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据