CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

左主干支架

科研文章

荐读文献

Provisional versus elective two-stent strategy for unprotected true left main bifurcation lesions: Insights from a FAILS-2 sub-study Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Long-term outcomes following mini-crush versus culotte stenting for the treatment of unprotected left main disease: insights from the Milan and New-Tokyo (MITO) registry Differential prognostic impact of treatment strategy among patients with left main versus non-left main bifurcation lesions undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the COBIS (Coronary Bifurcation Stenting) Registry II Management of left main disease: an update Current treatment of significant left main coronary artery disease: A review Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study

Clinical Trial2019 Feb 21;380(8):720-728.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis in High-Risk Ambulatory Patients With Cancer

Khorana AA, Soff GA, CASSINI Investigators. Keywords: direct oral anticoagulant; thromboprophylaxis; cancer patients

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Ambulatory patients receiving systemic cancer therapy are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism. However, the benefit of thromboprophylaxis in these patients is uncertain.

 

METHODS -  In this double-blind, randomized trial involving high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana score of 2, on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of venous thromboembolism), we randomly assigned patients without deep-vein thrombosis at screening to receive rivaroxaban (at a dose of 10 mg) or placebo daily for up to 180 days, with screening every 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of objectively confirmed proximal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis in an upper limb or distal deep-vein thrombosis in a lower limb, and death from venous thromboembolism and was assessed up to day 180. In a prespecified supportive analysis involving the same population, the same end point was assessed during the intervention period (first receipt of trial agent to last dose plus 2 days). The primary safety end point was major bleeding.

 

RESULTS -  Of 1080 enrolled patients, 49 (4.5%) had thrombosis at screening and did not undergo randomization. Of the 841 patients who underwent randomization, the primary end point occurred in 25 of 420 patients (6.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 37 of 421 (8.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 1.09; P = 0.10) in the period up to day 180. In the prespecified intervention-period analysis, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (2.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 27 (6.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.80). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 patients (2.0%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (1.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  In high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of venous thromboembolism or death due to venous thromboembolism in the 180-day trial period. During the intervention period, rivaroxaban led to a substantially lower incidence of such events, with a low incidence of major bleeding. (Funded by Janssen and others; CASSINI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878.).

 

Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.