Rivaroxaban in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease after lower extremity bypass surgery with venous and prosthetic conduits.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) requiring lower extremity revascularization (LER) have a high risk of adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The results from the VOYAGER PAD (efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in reducing the risk of major thrombotic vascular events in subjects with symptomatic peripheral artery disease undergoing peripheral revascularization procedures of the lower extremities) trial have demonstrated that rivaroxaban significantly reduced this risk with an overall favorable net benefit for patients undergoing surgical revascularization. However, the efficacy and safety for those treated by surgical bypass, including stratification by bypass conduit (venous or prosthetic), has not yet been described. METHODS: In the VOYAGER PAD trial, patients who had undergone surgical and endovascular infrainguinal LER to treat PAD were randomized to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on top of background antiplatelet therapy (aspirin 100 mg to be used in all and clopidogrel in some at the treating physician's discretion) and followed up for a median of 28 months. The primary end point was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of vascular etiology, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding using the TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) scale. The index procedure details, including conduit type (venous vs prosthetic), were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Among 6564 randomized patients, 2185 (33%) had undergone surgical LER. Of these 2185 patients, surgical bypass had been performed for 1448 (66%), using a prosthetic conduit for 773 patients (53%) and venous conduit for 646 patients (45%). Adjusting for the baseline differences and anatomic factors, the risk of unplanned limb revascularization in the placebo arm was 2.5-fold higher for those receiving a prosthetic conduit vs a venous conduit (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-3.90; P < .001), and the risk of acute limb ischemia was three times greater (adjusted HR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.84-5.11; P < .001). The use of rivaroxaban reduced the primary outcome for the patients treated with bypass surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98), with consistent benefits for those receiving venous (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96) and prosthetic (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15) conduits (Pinteraction = .254). In the overall trial, major bleeding using the TIMI scale was increased with rivaroxaban. However, the numbers for those treated with bypass surgery were low (five with rivaroxaban vs nine with placebo; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.18-1.65) and not powered to show statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical bypass with a prosthetic conduit was associated with significantly higher rates of major adverse limb events relative to venous conduits even after adjustment for patient and anatomic characteristics. Adding rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced this risk, with an increase in the bleeding risk, but had a favorable benefit risk for patients treated with bypass surgery, regardless of conduit type. Rivaroxaban should be considered after lower extremity bypass for symptomatic PAD to reduce ischemic complications of the heart, limb, and brain.

Hybrid Revascularization for Aorto-Iliac Occlusive Disease with Common Femoral Artery Involvement: Early Outcomes of a Single Centre.

OBJECTIVE: To study the early outcomes of aorto-iliac occlusive disease with common femoral artery involvement by hybrid methods of revascularization - iliac stenting with femoral endarterectomy. We report the initial experiences of a single centre and discuss issues that arose. METHODS: Ninety-eight critical limb ischaemia (CLI) patients with aorto-iliac occlusive lesions TASC-II C and D were treated using HR between January 2017 and September 2020 in the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Clinical Hospital. Prospective data were recorded and analysed including demographics, technical success, 30-day and early patency outcomes, re-intervention, and death. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 65 ± 7.2 years (61 men and 37 women). Using classification by TASC-II, 77% of the lesions were class D. Technical success was seen in 98% of patients. Two patients underwent a crossover femoro-femoral bypass due to failure to re-enter the true lumen of the aorta during endovascular lesion crossing. There were no deaths during the 30-day period. No re-interventions for thrombosis were needed. Additional delayed bypass procedures were required in 19 patients (19.3%) with distal occlusions and minor and major tissue loss. The overall complication rate was 16.3% (16 patients). The 30-day patency rate was 100%. The median follow-up period was 18 months (range 1-36 months) with a primary patency rate of 87.2%, and cumulative primary assisted and secondary patency rate of 93.4%. Four patients died during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid revascularization is a safe and less traumatic method of managing aorto-iliac occlusive disease with common femoral artery involvement. Good early patency results and low major complication rates indicate that HR is an excellent alternative to traditional open surgery, especially for high-risk patients.

Total Ischemic Event Reduction With Rivaroxaban After Peripheral Arterial Revascularization in the VOYAGER PAD Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing lower extremity revascularization (LER) are at high risk of major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The VOYAGER PAD (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities) trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily reduced first events by 15%. The benefit of rivaroxaban on total (first and subsequent) events in this population is unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the total burden of vascular events in patients with PAD after LER and the efficacy of low-dose rivaroxaban on total events. METHODS: VOYAGER PAD randomized patients with PAD undergoing LER to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or aspirin alone. The primary endpoint was time to first event of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of a vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The current analysis considered all events (first and subsequent) for components of the primary endpoint as well as additional vascular events including peripheral revascularizations and venous thromboembolism. HRs were estimated by marginal proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 6,564 randomized events, there were 4,714 total first and subsequent vascular events including 1,614 primary endpoint events and 3,100 other vascular events. Rivaroxaban reduced total primary endpoint events (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75-0.98; P = 0.02) and total vascular events (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95; P = 0.003). An estimated 4.4 primary and 12.5 vascular events per 100 participants were avoided with rivaroxaban over 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic PAD who are undergoing LER have a high total event burden that is significantly reduced with rivaroxaban. Total event reduction may be a useful metric to quantify the efficacy of rivaroxaban in this setting. (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities [VOYAGER PAD]; NCT02504216).

Rivaroxaban in Peripheral Artery Disease after Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease who have undergone lower-extremity revascularization are at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in this context are uncertain. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone revascularization were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The principal safety outcome was major bleeding, defined according to the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) classification; major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) was a secondary safety outcome. RESULTS: A total of 6564 patients underwent randomization; 3286 were assigned to the rivaroxaban group, and 3278 were assigned to the placebo group. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 508 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 584 in the placebo group; the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the incidence at 3 years were 17.3% and 19.9%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 0.96; P = 0.009). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group and in 44 patients in the placebo group (2.65% and 1.87%; hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.10; P = 0.07). ISTH major bleeding occurred in 140 patients in the rivaroxaban group, as compared with 100 patients in the placebo group (5.94% and 4.06%; hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.84; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone lower-extremity revascularization, rivaroxaban at a dose of 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the composite outcome of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than aspirin alone. The incidence of TIMI major bleeding did not differ significantly between the groups. The incidence of ISTH major bleeding was significantly higher with rivaroxaban and aspirin than with aspirin alone. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; VOYAGER PAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02504216.).

Edoxaban for venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: results from a non-inferiority subgroup analysis of the Hokusai-VTE randomised, double-blind, double-dummy trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism occurs commonly in patients with cancer. Direct oral anticoagulants are non-inferior to conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. We hypothesised that edoxaban, a direct oral inhibitor of activated clotting factor Xa, might be more suitable than conventional anticoagulants in the management of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of edoxaban compared with warfarin in a subgroup of patients with cancer enrolled in the Hokusai-VTE trial. METHODS: We did a prespecified subgroup analysis in August, 2013, and a post-hoc analysis of non-inferiority and safety in March, 2016, of the patients with cancer enrolled in the randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, Hokusai-VTE trial done between Jan 28, 2010, and Oct 31, 2012. In this study, patients aged at least 18 years with acute symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis or acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (with or without deep-vein thrombosis) were assigned to receive edoxaban 60 mg once per day (or 30 mg once per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/min, bodyweight <60 kg, or who were receiving concomitant treatment with the P-glycoprotein inhibitors quinidine or verapamil) or warfarin (dose adjusted to maintain the international normalised ratio between 2·0 and 3·0) or placebos for either group for at least 3 months up to 12 months. All patients received initial therapy with open-label enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin for at least 5 days. Edoxoban (or placebo) was started after discontinuation of initial heparin; warfarin (or placebo) started concurrently with the study regimen of heparin. In our analysis we examined data for a subgroup of these patients who had a history of cancer or who had been categorised as having active cancer by the study physician at the time of enrolment. Additionally, all patients with a history of cancer were reviewed post hoc and categorised according to the presence or absence of active cancer. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of these patients with symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism during the 12-month study period, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, with an upper limit of the CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5. The principal safety outcome was the proportion of patients who had clinically relevant bleeding in the population of patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00986154. FINDINGS: Of 771 patients with cancer enrolled in the trial, 378 were assigned to edoxaban and 393 to warfarin. Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 14 (4%) of 378 patients given edoxaban and in 28 (7%) of 393 patients given warfarin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·28-1·00; p=0·0007). The upper limit of this 95% CI did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1·5 that was prespecified for the trial. Clinically relevant bleeding (major or non-major) occurred in 47 (12%) of 378 patients who received edoxaban and in 74 (19%) of 393 patients who received warfarin; HR for clinically relevant bleeding 0·64, 95% CI 0·45-0·92; p=0·017. Major bleeding occurred in ten (3%) of 378 patients with a history of cancer who received edoxaban and in 13 (3%) of 393 who received warfarin (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·35-1·83). INTERPRETATION: Edoxaban might be as effective as warfarin for the treatment of patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism, and with less clinically relevant bleeding. Additional clinical trials of edoxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer are warranted. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo.