3294Frequency, management and outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease eligible for COMPASS. An analysis of the CLARIFY registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background The COMPASS trial demonstrated that a combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin improved cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in high-risk patients with either peripheral artery disease (PAD) or stable coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with aspirin alone, at the price of increased bleeding. A previous analysis of the REACH Registry reported an eligibility rate of 52.9% within a population with stable vascular disease. However, most of cardiologists actually treat patients with stable CAD, rather than PAD. Data regarding eligibility to COMPASS in CAD patients from real life practice are scarce. Purpose We aimed to describe the proportion of patients eligible to COMPASS within the CLARIFY Registry. Additionally, we aimed to describe their management and outcomes, comparing patients excluded from the trial (COMPASS Excluded), patients eligible for the trial (COMPASS Eligible), and patients who did not meet the “enrichment criteria” for enrolment (COMPASS Not Included). Methods We used the CLARIFY Registry, an international observational registry of more than 30.000 patients with stable CAD. In accordance with COMPASS exclusion criteria, patients with a REACH bleeding risk score >10, heart failure (HF), severe renal insufficiency, need for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), or anticoagulant (AC) therapy were excluded. Then, COMPASS inclusion criteria were applied: CAD patients had to be 65 years or more, or, if younger, have documented atherosclerosis (PAD or revascularization involving at least two vascular beds) or at least two enrichment criteria (current smoker, diabetes mellitus, GFR <60 mL/min, or non lacunar ischemic stroke).The ischemic outcome was a composite of CV death, MI, or stroke and bleeding outcome was a composite of bleeding leading to either admission or transfusion, or haemorrhagic stroke. Results Among 15.185 patients with comprehensive data allowing precise assessment of eligibility, 43.1% (n=6.540) had at least one exclusion criteria (COMPASS-Excluded), 23.1% (n=3.503) did not have enrichment criteria (COMPASS-Not Included) and 33.9% (n=5.142) were eligible. The vast majority of excluded patients were excluded due to high bleeding risk (62.7% needing DAPT, and 52.7% for high REACH bleeding risk score). The rates (100 patients/year) of ischemic and bleeding outcome were 2.3 [2.1–2.5] and 0.5 [0.4–0.6] respectively for COMPASS-Eligible, 3.0 [2.8–3.2] and 0.6 [0.5–0.7] for COMPASS-Excluded and 1.2 [1.0–1.4] and 0.2 [0.2–0.3] for COMPASS-Not Included. Ischemic and bleeding events Conclusion In a large contemporary registry of stable CAD patients, approximately one of three patients was potentially eligible for adjunction of low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin. This group is at particularly high risk of ischemic outcome. Patients with exclusion criteria for COMPASS had the worse ischemic and bleeding outcomes and represent a group in need of improved therapy. Acknowledgement/Funding None
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».