Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures

Anjan Talukdar, S. Keisin Wang, Lauren Czosnowski, Nassim Mokraoui, Alok Gupta, Andres Fajardo, Michael Dalsing, Raghu Motaganahalli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ 2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. Results: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. Conclusions: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Warfarin
Safety
Hemorrhage
Logistic Models
Demography
Rivaroxaban
United States Food and Drug Administration
Anticoagulants
Retrospective Studies
Guidelines
Students
Incidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures. / Talukdar, Anjan; Wang, S. Keisin; Czosnowski, Lauren; Mokraoui, Nassim; Gupta, Alok; Fajardo, Andres; Dalsing, Michael; Motaganahalli, Raghu.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Talukdar, Anjan ; Wang, S. Keisin ; Czosnowski, Lauren ; Mokraoui, Nassim ; Gupta, Alok ; Fajardo, Andres ; Dalsing, Michael ; Motaganahalli, Raghu. / Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2017.
@article{c5c35107962945daac477c2e4672fb5f,
title = "Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures",
abstract = "Objective: Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ 2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. Results: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. Conclusions: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.",
author = "Anjan Talukdar and Wang, {S. Keisin} and Lauren Czosnowski and Nassim Mokraoui and Alok Gupta and Andres Fajardo and Michael Dalsing and Raghu Motaganahalli",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.052",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial procedures

AU - Talukdar, Anjan

AU - Wang, S. Keisin

AU - Czosnowski, Lauren

AU - Mokraoui, Nassim

AU - Gupta, Alok

AU - Fajardo, Andres

AU - Dalsing, Michael

AU - Motaganahalli, Raghu

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objective: Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ 2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. Results: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. Conclusions: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.

AB - Objective: Rivaroxaban is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticoagulant for venous thromboembolic disease; however, there is no information regarding the safety and its efficacy to support its use in patients after open or endovascular arterial interventions. We report the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients undergoing peripheral arterial interventions. Methods: This single-institution retrospective study analyzed all sequential patients from December 2012 to August 2014 (21 months) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or warfarin after a peripheral arterial procedure. Our study population was then compared using American College of Chest Physicians guidelines with patients then stratified as low, medium, or high risk for bleeding complications. Statistical analyses were performed using the Student t-test and χ 2 test to compare demographics, readmissions because of bleeding, and the need for secondary interventions. Logistic regression models were used for analysis of variables associated with bleeding complications and secondary interventions. The Fisher exact test was used for power analysis. Results: There were 44 patients in the rivaroxaban group and 50 patients in the warfarin group. Differences between demographics and risk factors for bleeding between groups or reintervention rate were not statistically significant (P = .297). However, subgroup evaluation of the safety profile suggests that patients who were aged ≤65 years and on warfarin had an overall higher incidence of major bleeding (P = .020). Patients who were aged >65 years, undergoing open operation, had a significant risk for reintervention (P = .047) when they received rivaroxaban. Conclusions: Real-world experience using rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients after peripheral arterial procedures suggests a comparable safety and efficacy profile. Subgroup analysis of those requiring an open operation demonstrated a decreased bleeding risk when rivaroxaban was used (in those aged <65 years) but an increased risk for secondary interventions. Further studies with a larger cohort are required to validate our results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024090975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024090975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.052

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.052

M3 - Article

C2 - 28712814

AN - SCOPUS:85024090975

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

ER -