Key result
Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.85) and all-cause death (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.90) compared with aspirin monotherapy.
Why the study?
Long-term antithrombotic strategies for patients with chronic coronary syndrome with high-risk factors represent an important treatment dilemma in clinical practice.
Do long-term antithrombotic strategies reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome compared to aspirin monotherapy?
Meta-Analysis (n=75,167)
Do long-term antithrombotic strategies reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome compared to aspirin monotherapy?
Odds Ratio: 0.74 (95% CI 0.64–0.85)
In patients with chronic coronary syndrome, adding rivaroxaban to aspirin reduces ischemic events and all-cause mortality compared to aspirin alone, despite an increased risk of major bleeding, making it a preferred long-term strategy.
Supports rivaroxaban plus aspirin as preferred long-term strategy in chronic coronary syndrome despite bleeding risk; reinforces meta-analytic evidence for dual pathway inhibition.
Background Long-term antithrombotic strategies for patients with chronic coronary syndrome with high-risk factors represent an important treatment dilemma in clinical practice. Our aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of long-term antithrombotic strategies in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Methods and Results Four randomized studies were included (n=75167; THEMIS [Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study], COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies], PEGASUS-TIMI 54 [Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54], and DAPT [Dual Anti-platelet Therapy]). The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs) were calculated as the measure of effect size. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that, compared with aspirin monotherapy, the ORs for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 0.86; (95% CI, 0.80-0.93) for ticagrelor plus aspirin, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78-1.02) for rivaroxaban monotherapy, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.64-0.85) for rivaroxaban plus aspirin, and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.60,-0.86) for thienopyridine plus aspirin. Compared with aspirin monotherapy, the ORs for trial-defined major bleeding were 2.15 (95% CI, 1.78-2.59]) for ticagrelor plus aspirin, 1.51 (95% CI, 1.23-1.85) for rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 1.68 (95% CI, 1.37-2.05) for rivaroxaban plus aspirin. For death from any cause, the improvement effect of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was detected versus aspirin monotherapy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90), ticagrelor plus aspirin (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), rivaroxaban monotherapy (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and thienopyridine plus aspirin (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82) regimens. Conclusions All antithrombotic strategies combined with aspirin significantly reduced the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding compared with aspirin monotherapy. Considering the outcomes of all ischemic and bleeding events and all-cause mortality, rivaroxaban plus aspirin appears to be the preferred long-term antithrombotic regimen for patients with chronic coronary syndrome and high-risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Chronic coronary syndrome (n=75,167). Rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. Aspirin monotherapy was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.85). Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.85) and all-cause death (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.90) compared with aspirin monotherapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: