Meta-analysis of risk of stroke and thrombo-embolism with rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonists in ablation and cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation in cardioversion and ablation of atrial fibrillation is imperative for reducing thrombo-embolic events. Ample information is available about the use of warfarin and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) but few trials examine safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in these procedures. We aim to explore the hypothesis that rivaroxaban causes equal thrombo-embolic and bleeding events when used in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing ablation or cardioversion compared to VKA.

METHODS

We searched the online databases as well as conference abstracts till December 2014 for studies comparing rivaroxaban with VKA in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing catheter ablation or cardioversion. We report events as Odds ratio using random effects model except when event rates were less than 1% we used Peto Odds Ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 8872 atrial fibrillation patients in 15 studies undergoing either catheter ablation or cardioversion were included in this analysis. There were significantly lower stroke events with rivaroxaban compared with VKA (Peto Odds Ratio (POR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.11, 0.95]; P=0.04), and significantly less thrombo-embolic events with rivaroxaban compared with VKA (POR 0.46, 95% CI [0.21, 0.97]; P=0.04). Major and minor bleeding were equal with rivaroxaban versus VKA (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI [0.62, 1.36]; P=0.68) and (OR 0.81,95% CI [0.58, 1.11]; P=0.19) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of rivaroxaban in ablation and cardioversion of atrial fibrillation may be associated with decreased risk of stroke and thromboembolism with equal bleeding risk compared to VKA.

Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin or dabigatran in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

Several studies have been conducted to study the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in the atrial fibrillation periprocedural ablation period with similar rates of thromboembolism and major bleeding risks compared with warfarin or dabigatran. We sought to systematically review this evidence using pooled data from multiple studies. Studies comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin or dabigatran in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation were identified through electronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane library up to March 2014. Study-specific risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model meta-analysis. In an analysis involving 3,575 patients, thromboembolism (composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, and systemic and pulmonary emboli) occurred in 3 of 789 patients (0.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and 10 of 2,786 patients (0.4%) in the warfarin group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.96, I(2) = 0%, p = 0.51). Major hemorrhage occurred in 9 of 749 patients (1.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and 22 of 975 patients (2.3%) in the warfarin group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.02, I(2) = 0%, p = 0.06). Furthermore, direct efficacy and safety comparisons between rivaroxaban and dabigatran showed nonsignificant differences in rates of thromboembolism (0.5% vs 0.4%, respectively, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.99, I(2) = 0%, p = 0.88) and major bleeding (1.0% vs 1.6%, respectively, RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.15, I(2) = 22%, p = 0.66). In conclusion, our study suggests that patients treated with rivaroxaban during periprocedural catheter ablation have similar rates of thromboembolic events and major hemorrhage. Similar results were seen in direct comparisons between dabigatran and rivaroxaban.