NAVIGATE ESUS LV Dysfunction Subgroup
(2021)Objective
To determine whether anticoagulation is superior to aspirin in reducing recurrent stroke in patients with ESUS and left ventricular dysfunction.
Study Summary
• No benefit seen in patients without LV dysfunction (HR 1.16)
• Treatment interaction was statistically significant (P = 0.03)
Intervention
Post hoc exploratory analysis comparing rivaroxaban 15mg daily versus aspirin 100mg daily in NAVIGATE ESUS participants with documented LV function assessment over median 10.4 months follow-up.
Inclusion Criteria
Participants from original NAVIGATE ESUS trial with documented LV function assessment, age ≥50 years, neuroimaging-confirmed ESUS within 7 days to 6 months of symptom onset
Study Design
Arms: Rivaroxaban 15mg daily vs Aspirin 100mg daily
Patients per Arm: Rivaroxaban: 3552 total (229 with LV dysfunction), Aspirin: 3555 total (273 with LV dysfunction)
Outcome
• No LV dysfunction: 5.3%/year rivaroxaban vs 4.5%/year aspirin
• Major bleeding: 5 events rivaroxaban vs 0 aspirin in LV dysfunction group
Bottom Line
Rivaroxaban was superior to aspirin in reducing recurrent stroke or systemic embolism among NAVIGATE ESUS participants with left ventricular dysfunction, but not in those without LV dysfunction.
Major Points
- Post hoc exploratory analysis of 7,107 NAVIGATE ESUS participants with documented LV function assessment
- LV dysfunction was present in 502 participants (7.1%) defined as moderate-severe global contractility impairment and/or regional wall motion abnormality
- Significant treatment interaction by LV dysfunction status (P = 0.03 for interaction)
- Among patients with LV dysfunction: rivaroxaban 2.4%/year vs aspirin 6.5%/year (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.93)
- Among patients without LV dysfunction: rivaroxaban 5.3%/year vs aspirin 4.5%/year (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.46)
- Results consistent for secondary composite outcome
- Major bleeding events were infrequent in both LV dysfunction groups
Study Design
- Study Type
- Post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trial
- Randomization
- Yes
- Blinding
- Double-blind (participants and investigators)
- Sample Size
- 7107
- Follow-up
- Median 10.4 months (IQR 5.2-17.0)
- Centers
- 459
- Countries
- 31 countries including Canada, US, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, East Asia
Primary Outcome
Definition: Composite of recurrent stroke or systemic embolism
| Control | Intervention | HR/OR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| LV dysfunction: 6.5%/year (95% CI 4.0-11.0); No LV dysfunction: 4.5%/year (95% CI 3.8-5.3) | LV dysfunction: 2.4%/year (95% CI 1.1-5.4); No LV dysfunction: 5.3%/year (95% CI 4.5-6.2) | LV dysfunction: 0.36; No LV dysfunction: 1.16 (LV dysfunction: 0.14-0.93; No LV dysfunction: 0.93-1.46) | P for interaction = 0.03 |
Limitations & Criticisms
- Post hoc exploratory analysis of negative overall trial - results should be considered hypothesis-generating
- LV dysfunction assessment was not standardized across participating sites
- No requirement to document specific echocardiographic parameters
- Relatively small number of participants with LV dysfunction (7.1%)
- Lack of granular data on presence or extent of myocardial scar
- Limited power to detect associations due to small LV dysfunction subgroup
- Non-prespecified combination of LV dysfunction categories due to low event rates
Citation
JAMA Neurol. 2021;78(12):1454-1460. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3828