ReviewInternational journal of clinical practice2015
Stroke prevention with rivaroxaban in higher-risk populations with atrial fibrillation.
Review in International journal of clinical practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding between Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Vitamin K Antagonists in the Asian Atrial Fibrillation Patients: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Potential clinical applications of phytopharmaceuticals for the in-patient management of coagulopathies in COVID-19.Phytotherapy research : PTR · 2022Review
- Permanent Bilateral Carotid Filters for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.Current cardiology reports · 2020Review
- Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Dabigatran and Factor Xa Inhibitors for Stroke Prevention in Hemophiliacs with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of atrial fibrillation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, is a major risk factor for stroke. Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is approved for the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular AF. In the pivotal phase III trial ROCKET AF, rivaroxaban demonstrated non-inferiority compared with warfarin for reducing the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) in patients with AF (intention-to-treat analysis), without an increased risk of major bleeding. Superior efficacy vs. warfarin was achieved while patients were on study medication. Other direct oral factor Xa inhibitors have completed phase III clinical trials in this indication. Compared with warfarin, apixaban (in the ARISTOTLE trial) and edoxaban (in the ENGAGE-AF trial) were shown to be superior or non-inferior, respectively, for reduction in stroke or SE risk in patients with AF. Baseline stroke risk, as indicated by CHADS2 scores, was lower in patients in the ARISTOTLE and ENGAGE-AF trials than in ROCKET AF.
objectivesThis review discusses the main findings from ROCKET AF, specifically examining recent subgroup analyses investigating rivaroxaban use across various patient types at high risk for adverse outcomes, including those with prior stroke or transient ischaemic attack, reduced renal function, prior myocardial infarction, peripheral artery disease, heart failure or patients aged ≥ 75 years and those resident in East Asia.
conclusionsThese subgroup analyses demonstrate that the treatment effect for rivaroxaban vs. warfarin is broadly consistent across a wide range of patient groups, with respect to both efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.