MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980217808 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.500.500

Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis After Total Hip or Knee Replacement Surgery: Comparison of Outcomes of the XAMOS and RECORD Studies

2012· article· en· W2980217808 sur OpenAlexaff
Alexander G.G. Turpie, André Schmidt, Michael R. Lassen, LG Mantovani, Reinhold Kreutz, Gerlind Holberg, Sylvia Haas

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRivaroxabanKnee replacementOrthopedic surgeryHip replacementSurgeryAdverse effectIncidence (geometry)CohortHip fractureInternal medicineOsteoporosisWarfarin

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 500 Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis after Total Hip or Knee Replacement Surgery: Comparison of Outcomes of the XAMOS and RECORD Studies. Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Rivaroxaban has been approved for clinical use in this indication based on the extensive phase III RECORD program, which investigated the efficacy and safety of oral rivaroxaban regimens compared with subcutaneous enoxaparin regimens in patients undergoing elective total hip or knee replacement surgery. XAMOS is a phase IV, non-interventional, open-label cohort study that compared rivaroxaban with any pharmacological prophylaxis used in routine clinical practice for VTE prevention after major orthopedic surgery of the hip or knee. An additional aim of the XAMOS study was to assess whether the results from the phase III RECORD studies would be reflected in routine clinical practice. The XAMOS study, which ran from 2009 to 2011, collected data on the incidence of adverse events (including symptomatic thromboembolic and bleeding events) in adult patients from 252 centers in 37 countries worldwide, who underwent elective hip or knee replacement surgery (or hip fracture surgery, where appropriate) and received rivaroxaban or other pharmacological prophylaxis (standard of care). The attending physician determined the type, duration, and dose of drug. Of the 17,701 patients enrolled, 8778 received rivaroxaban and 8635 received standard of care, of whom 7055 (81.7%) received low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Primary hip/knee replacement surgery accounted for >90% of all procedures. Baseline demographics (e.g. age, sex, body weight, and ethnicity) were similar for patients receiving rivaroxaban, standard of care, or LMWH, and were also similar to those of patients who received rivaroxaban in the RECORD program. LMWH was the comparator in the RECORD program; therefore, the XAMOS study also compared outcomes with LMWH and rivaroxaban. Data for the LMWH group were similar to the standard-of-care group. Rates of symptomatic arterial, venous, and all thromboembolic events in XAMOS were lower in the rivaroxaban group compared with the LMWH group (Figure 1). The data are consistent with the results of the RECORD1–4 pooled analysis, which showed a significantly lower incidence of symptomatic VTE and all-cause mortality in patients receiving rivaroxaban compared with those receiving enoxaparin (Figure 2). The rates of treatment-emergent major bleeding events (RECORD definition) were 0.4% vs 0.3% in the rivaroxaban and LMWH groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR]=1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–2.18; Figures 1 and 2), and were similar to those in the RECORD1–4 pooled analysis (day 12±2 active treatment pool: 0.3% [rivaroxaban] vs 0.2% [enoxaparin]; OR=1.62; 95% CI 0.77–3.53; Figure 2). When the European Medicines Agency (EMA) definition for treatment-emergent major bleeding was used, the incidence of major bleeding was slightly higher (nonsignificant) for patients receiving rivaroxaban compared with those receiving LMWH in the XAMOS study (1.7% vs 1.4%; OR=1.19; 95% CI: 0.92–1.53; Figures 1 and 2); these results were also similar to those of the RECORD1–4 pooled analysis (day 12±2 active treatment pool: 2.0% [rivaroxaban] vs 1.7% [enoxaparin]; OR=1.20; 95% CI: 0.91–1.57). XAMOS is the first study presenting real-world experience of the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for the prevention of VTE after major orthopedic surgery of the hip or knee. The results of XAMOS showed that rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly lower incidence of symptomatic VTE compared with LMWH, without a significant increase in the risk of major bleeding. These findings are consistent with those obtained in the RECORD studies, and indicate that the results of the RECORD program can be translated into the routine clinical setting. Disclosures: Turpie: GSK: Speakers Bureau; GSK, JnJ: Consultancy. Schmidt:Bayer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lassen:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Bayer; Boehringer: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Research Funding. Mantovani:Bayer Healthcare Pfizer Merck Serono Baxter Astellas: Speakers Bureau; Bayer Healthcare Pfizer Bristol-Meyer Squibb Amgen Merck&Co: Consultancy; Bayer Healthcare Pfizer Bristol-Meyer Squibb Biogen Idec Medtronic Admirall Otsuka Amgen Merck&Co Merck-Serono: Research Funding. Kreutz:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayerm Daichii Sankyo, Berlin-Chemie Menarini: Speakers Bureau; Bayer, Daichii Sankyo: financial and material support, financial and material support Other. Holberg:Bayer Healthcare: Employment. Haas:Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,078

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,040
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,007
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,058
Tête enseignante GPT0,334
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→