Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Fragile Patients After Lower Extremity Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg plus aspirin reduced limb and cardiovascular events and increased bleeding in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) after lower extremity revascularization in the VOYAGER PAD (Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Reducing the Risk of Major Thrombotic Vascular Events in Subjects With Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization Procedures of the Lower Extremities) study. Fragile patients are at heightened risk for ischemic and bleeding events. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg in fragile patients from VOYAGER PAD. METHODS: ). The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of a vascular etiology, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The principal safety outcome was TIMI major bleeding. RESULTS: Of 6,564 randomized patients, a total of 1,674 subjects were categorized as fragile at baseline. In the placebo arm, fragile patients were at higher risk of the primary outcome (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.12-1.61) and TIMI major bleeding (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.83-2.96), compared with nonfragile patients. The effect of rivaroxaban on the primary endpoint was not modified by frailty status (fragile HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.75-1.15; nonfragile HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.97; P interaction = 0.37). Rivaroxaban increased TIMI major bleeding in fragile (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.82-2.91) and nonfragile patients (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.84-2.23; P interaction = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PAD after lower extremity revascularization meeting fragile criteria are at higher risk of ischemic complications and bleeding. Rivaroxaban reduces ischemic risk and increases bleeding regardless of frailty status. These data may assist in personalization of antithrombotic therapy in fragile population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".