Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin in Relation to Vascular Risk in the COMPASS Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major vascular events in patients with stable vascular disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify subsets of patients at higher risk of recurrent vascular events, which may help focus the use of rivaroxaban and aspirin therapy. METHODS: COMPASS patients with vascular disease were risk stratified using 2 methods: the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) atherothrombosis risk score and CART (Classification and Regression Tree) analysis. The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin were compared to aspirin alone over 30 months for the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or vascular amputation; for severe bleeding; and for the net clinical benefit. RESULTS: High-risk patients using the REACH score were those with 2 or more vascular beds affected, history of heart failure (HF), or renal insufficiency, and by CART analysis were those with ≥2 vascular beds affected, history of HF, or diabetes. Rivaroxaban and aspirin combination reduced the serious vascular event incidence by 25% (4.48% vs. 5.95%, hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.85), equivalent to 23 events prevented per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months, at the cost of a nonsignificant 34% increase in severe bleeding (1.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.88), or 2 events caused per 1,000 patients treated. Among patients with ≥1 high-risk feature identified from the CART analysis, rivaroxaban and aspirin prevented 33 serious vascular events, whereas in lower-risk patients, rivaroxaban and aspirin treatment led to the avoidance of 10 events per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with vascular disease, further risk stratification can identify higher-risk patients (≥2 vascular beds affected, HF, renal insufficiency, or diabetes). The net clinical benefit remains favorable for most patients treated with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".