Key result
Rivaroxaban resulted in a significantly higher overall treatment response rate (93.04%) compared to warfarin (74.45%) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Why the study?
Rivaroxaban offers advantages over warfarin in acute pulmonary embolism, but individual patient responses vary.
Does rivaroxaban improve clinical efficacy compared to warfarin in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=295)
No
Does rivaroxaban improve clinical efficacy compared to warfarin in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Absolute Event Rate: 93.04% vs 74.45%
p-value: p=<0.001
Rivaroxaban demonstrated superior clinical efficacy and improved oxygenation compared to warfarin for acute pulmonary embolism, with soluble thrombomodulin and circulating endothelial cells serving as predictors of treatment response.
Rivaroxaban was associated with higher response rates than warfarin in acute PE; hypothesis-generating and requires RCT confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition requiring effective anticoagulation therapy. Rivaroxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, offers advantages over warfarin, yet individual patient responses vary. This study examined the efficacy of rivaroxaban compared to warfarin and evaluated vascular endothelial markers as predictors of anticoagulant efficacy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-over cohort study involving 295 patients with acute PE, comparing rivaroxaban (n = 158) and warfarin (n = 137) treatments. Clinical efficacy was assessed based on symptomatic improvement and imaging results. Vascular endothelial markers, including soluble thrombomodulin (sTM), circulating endothelial cells (CEC), and endothelin-1 (ET-1), were examined for their predictive capability in treatment outcomes, then the data of 97 additional patients were used for external validation. RESULTS: = 0.003). Rivaroxaban significantly altered coagulation parameters such as prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR). In addition, elevated sTM and reduced CEC were found to be associated with poorer anticoagulation outcomes. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) for predicting efficacy using vascular endothelial markers were 0.913 in the training cohort and 0.888 in the external validation cohort, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban was more effective than warfarin in treating acute PE, with specific vascular endothelial markers serving as promising predictors of therapeutic response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hui Du (2025) conducted a cohort in Acute pulmonary embolism (n=295). Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Overall treatment response (clinical efficacy based on symptomatic improvement and imaging) (p=<0.001). Rivaroxaban resulted in a significantly higher overall treatment response rate (93.04%) compared to warfarin (74.45%) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: