Key result
Rivaroxaban proves noninferior to nadroparin for VTE prophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery.
Why the study?
The benefit of rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery remained unknown.
Does rivaroxaban prevent venous thromboembolism in patients who underwent thoracic surgery for lung cancer compared to nadroparin?
RCT (n=403)
1:1
Does rivaroxaban prevent venous thromboembolism in patients who underwent thoracic surgery for lung cancer compared to nadroparin?
Effect estimate: ARR -5.2% (95% CI -12.2-1.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 12.5% vs 17.7%
Rivaroxaban is noninferior to nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis following thoracic surgery for lung cancer, with no significant difference in bleeding events.
Rivaroxaban may serve as an oral alternative to nadroparin after lung cancer surgery; extends DOAC evidence to thoracic oncology.
The benefit of rivaroxaban in thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery remains unknown. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, patients who underwent thoracic surgery for lung cancer were enrolled, and randomly assigned to rivaroxaban or nadroparin groups in a 1:1 ratio; anticoagulants were initiated 12-24 h after surgery and continued until discharge. Four hundred participants were required according to a noninferiority margin of 2%, assuming venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurrence rates of 6.0% and 12.6% for patients in the rivaroxaban and nadroparin groups, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was any VTE during the treatment and 30-day follow-up periods. The safety outcome was any on-treatment bleeding event. Finally, 403 patients were randomized (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), with 381 included in per-protocol (PP) population. The primary efficacy outcomes occurred in 12.5% (25/200) of the rivaroxaban group and 17.7% (36/203) of the nadroparin group (absolute risk reduction, -5.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], [-12.2-1.7]), indicating the noninferiority of rivaroxaban in ITT population. Sensitivity analysis was performed in the PP population and yielded similar results, confirming the noninferiority of rivaroxaban. In the safety analysis population, the incidence of any on-treatment bleeding events did not differ significantly between the groups (12.2% for rivaroxaban vs. 7.0% for nadroparin; relative risk [RR], 1.9; 95% CI, [0.9-3.7]; p = .08), including major bleeding (9.7% vs. 6.5%; RR, 1.6 [95% CI, 0.9-3.7]; p = .24), and nonmajor bleeding (2.6% vs. 0.5%; RR, 5.2 [95% CI, 0.6-45.2]; p = .13). Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery was shown to be noninferior to nadroparin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in thoracic surgery for lung cancer (n=403). Rivaroxaban vs. Nadroparin was evaluated on Any VTE during the treatment and 30-day follow-up periods (ARR -5.2%, 95% CI -12.2-1.7). Rivaroxaban was noninferior to nadroparin for thromboprophylaxis after oncologic lung surgery, with any VTE occurring in 12.5% vs 17.7% of patients (ARR -5.2%; 95% CI -12.2 to 1.7).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: