Search

Background: Reduced-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) was used in the J-ROCKET AF trial, demonstrating safety in the Asian population. It remains unclear whether treatment with reduced-dose versus full-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg) is associated with all-cause mortality in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Proposed: To evaluate the effects of reduced-dose rivaroxaban on all-cause mortality in patients over 85. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled medical records representing the period from October 2012 to November 2016. The 2 × 2 factorial design incorporated age (≥85 vs. <85) and rivaroxaban use (reduced vs. full dose). The primary study outcomes were all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Results: The study enrolled 2386 patients with a mean age of 76.6 ± 10.4 years; 51.8% were male. In the ≥85 group (n = 593), the reduced-dose subgroup had lower all-cause (5.3% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.02) and cardiac-related mortality (1.9% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.04), whereas the younger patients receiving reduced-dose rivaroxaban had higher all-cause mortality (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.01) but no difference in cardiac-related mortality (1.2% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.33). The rate of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly lower in the elderly group with reduced-dose rivaroxaban (7.2% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.01) but not in the younger group. After adjusting for confounders in the older group, treatment with reduced-dose rivaroxaban was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR (aHR): 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21–0.74, p < 0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.29–0.99, p = 0.05). No associations were found between rivaroxaban dose and cardiac-related mortality in either group, nor between younger age and any outcome. Conclusions: Reduced-dose rivaroxaban was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in older patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Future studies can investigate the effect of reduced-dose rivaroxaban on prognoses in elderly individuals ≥85 years in the west. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current treatment paradigm for atrial fibrillation (AF) prioritizes rate control over rhythm control; however, rhythm control has shown benefits over other AF strategies. This study compares the outcomes of rivaroxaban with and without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), using propensity score matching to correct for statistical effects of baseline discrepancies. This multi-center retrospective study included 1,477 patients with non-permanent AF who took rivaroxaban for at least one month between 2011 and 2016 and had not received catheter ablation. Concomitant AAD use was compared against clinical outcome endpoints for effectiveness, safety, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Associations with concomitant AAD use were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Patients were divided into two matched groups: rivaroxaban alone (n = 739) and with concomitant AADs (n = 738). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.308), effectiveness (p = 0.583), and MACE (p = 0.754) were similar between the two groups, and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences. The new thromboembolism and all-cause death rates were higher in rivaroxaban alone (2.7% vs 0.8%, p = 0.005; and 10% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.032, respectively). The heart failure readmission rate was higher in the concomitant-AAD group (8.4% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well-tolerated, with lower rates of thromboembolism and all-cause death, but is associated with more occurrences of congestive heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rivaroxaban reduces the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who often also receive antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm. Current guidelines contraindicate concomitant use of rivaroxaban with the popular AAD dronedarone, despite little data demonstrating interactions with AADs. This study investigates the outcomes of concomitant rivaroxaban and AAD drug use in a real-world cohort. Methods: This retrospective study included 1777 non-permanent AF patients taking rivaroxaban for ≥ 1 month between 2011 and 2016 from a multicenter cohort in Taiwan, and compared concomitant AAD use against clinical outcome endpoints for safety, effectiveness, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between concomitant AAD use and outcomes. Results: Patients were divided into rivaroxaban alone (n = 1205) and with concomitant amiodarone (n = 177), dronedarone (n = 231), or propafenone (n = 164) groups. The proportion of patients using rivaroxaban 10 mg was highest in the concomitant dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 53.6%; with amiodarone, 57.6%; with dronedarone, 77.1%; and with propafenone, 46.3% (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.892), effectiveness (p = 0.336), and MACE (p = 0.674) were similar between the four groups; however, there were significantly fewer new systemic thromboembolisms in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 2.5%; with amiodarone, 0.6%; with dronedarone, 0%; and with propafenone, 1.2% (p = 0.029). The all-cause death rate was also lowest in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 9.0%; with amiodarone, 9.6%; with dronedarone, 3.0%; and with propafenone: 6.1% (p = 0.013). After covariate adjustment, there were no differences in the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between patients receiving or not receiving AADs. Conclusion: Concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well tolerated, warranting further investigation into the apparent benefits of a reduced dose of rivaroxaban combined with dronedarone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction to: I Scientific Reports i https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07466-z, published online 08 March 2022 The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 2, which was incorrectly given as 'Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, MacKay Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan'. The correct affiliation is listed below: Department of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei, Taiwan. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can measure atrial fibrillation (AF) early; however, the timing for administering antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to suppress AF remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between baseline values and changes after AAD in terms of relative reduction of AF burden (RRAB) and maximum AF duration (RRMD). Methods: This multicenter retrospective study screened all patients with nonpermanent AF who had dual‐chamber pacemakers and only enrolled those receiving a naive AAD between September 2009 and December 2014. AF burden and maximum duration were calculated using CIED at 0 and 3 to 6 months after starting rhythm control. All the enrolled patients were divided into four groups according to baseline AF burden. RRAB and RRMD were monitored using CIEDs. Results: Overall, 145 eligible subjects received a naive AAD for nonpermanent AF. The mean RRAB in the four groups (AF burden <1%, 1%‐4%, 4%‐18%, and ≥18%) were −65.3%, −46.4%, −34.7%, and −27.9% (P = 0.005), respectively. Mean RRMD were −26.8%, −12.4%, 4.2%, and 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that the lowest baseline AF burden (<1%) was significantly associated with greater RRAB, which was not observed in the RRMD model. Conclusions: Lower baseline AF burden was associated with greater RRAB by AADs. Our finding suggests that rhythm control should be started in the early stage to achieve better responses to AADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]