The continuous challenge of antithrombotic strategies in diabetes: focus on direct oral anticoagulants

Efficiency and safety of dual pathway inhibition for the prevention of femoropopliteal artery restenosis in repeated endovascular interventions

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal strategy for evaluating the efficiency and safety of dual-pathway inhibition (DPI) in preventing femoropopliteal restenosis in patients undergoing repeated endovascular interventions. Despite several therapeutic interventions available for preventing femoropopliteal restenosis post repeated endovascular interventions, the ideal strategy, particularly evaluating the efficacy and safety of DPI, remains a matter of debate.

METHODS

From January 2015 to September 2021, patients who underwent repeated endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal restenosis were compared with those who underwent DPI or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after surgery using a propensity score-matched analysis. The primary outcome was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR). The principal safety outcome was a composite of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding. To further enhance the rigor, Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox proportional hazards modeling, and sensitivity analyses, as well as subgroup analyses were employed, reducing potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 441 patients were included in our study, of whom 294 (66.7%) received DAPT and 147 (33.1%) received DPI, with 114 matched pairs (mean age, 72.21 years; 84.2% male). Cumulative probability of CD-TLR at 36 months in the DPI group (17%) trended lower than that in the DAPT group (32%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.78; P =.004). The cumulative probability of freedom from CD-TLR at 36 months in the DPI group was 83%. No significant difference was observed in the composite outcome of major or CRNM bleeding between the DPI and DAPT groups (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.34 to 4.69; P = .730). The DPI group was associated with significantly lower rates of CD-TLR in the main subgroup analyses of diabetes (P = .001), previous smoking history (P = .008), longer lesion length (>10 cm) (P = .003), and treatment with debulking strategy (P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

In our investigation focused on CD-TLR, we found that DPI exhibited a significant reduction in the risk of reintervention compared with other treatment modalities. This underscores the potential of DPI as a viable therapeutic strategy in preventing reinterventions. Moreover, our assessment of safety outcomes revealed that the bleeding risks associated with DPI were on par with DAPT, thereby not compromising patient safety. These findings pave the way for potential broader clinical implications, emphasizing the effectiveness and safety of DPI in the context of reducing reintervention risks.

The Safety and Efficacy of Rivaroxaban Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from the establishment of databases up to 15 October 2019. Studies on efficacy and safety outcomes of rivaroxaban and warfarin were included. Efficacy and safety outcomes, including stroke, ischemic stroke, stroke or systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and major gastrointestinal bleeding were collected for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban could significantly reduce stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.95; P = 0.01), ischemic stroke (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.87; P = 0.0004), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P = 0.002), myocardial infarction (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.82; P < 0.0001), and major adverse cardiac events (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.94; P = 0.02) in patients with AF and diabetes. Moreover, rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.96; P = 0.02), intracranial hemorrhage (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.69; P < 0.00001), and major gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.98; P = 0.04). Similar results were obtained in stratified meta-analysis of cohort studies.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests a favorable risk-benefit profile of rivaroxaban, with superior efficacy and safety over warfarin in patients with AF and diabetes.