← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

NAVIGATE ESUS

Rivaroxaban vs Aspirin for Stroke Prevention in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source

Year of Publication: 2018

Authors: Hart RG, Sharma M, Mundl H, et al.

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

Citation: Hart RG, Sharma M, Mundl H, et al. Rivaroxaban vs Aspirin for Stroke Prevention in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(23):2191–2201.

Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1802686

PDF: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1802686


Clinical Question

Does rivaroxaban reduce recurrent stroke risk compared to aspirin in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)?

Bottom Line

Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke in ESUS patients and led to significantly more major bleeding, leading to early termination of the trial.

Major Points

  • NAVIGATE ESUS was the first large randomized trial testing anticoagulation for Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (ESUS), a concept proposed by Hart et al. in 2014 as a therapeutic target within cryptogenic stroke β€” hypothesizing that most ESUS was cardioembolic and would respond to anticoagulation.
  • 7,213 patients across 459 centers in 31 countries β€” the largest ESUS-specific trial. Used rivaroxaban 15mg once daily (lower dose than AF trials' 20mg) to balance efficacy vs bleeding in a population without confirmed AF.
  • Trial stopped early by the data safety monitoring board after a mean of only 11 months follow-up due to futility (no efficacy signal) and safety concerns (excess bleeding in rivaroxaban arm).
  • Primary endpoint (recurrent stroke or systemic embolism): 5.1%/yr rivaroxaban vs 4.8%/yr aspirin (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87–1.33, p=0.52) β€” completely neutral, with point estimate favoring aspirin. No trend toward benefit at any time point.
  • Major bleeding was doubled with rivaroxaban: 1.8% vs 0.9%/yr (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.36–2.93, p=0.001). Fatal bleeding: 7 rivaroxaban vs 1 aspirin β€” a striking safety signal that led to early termination.
  • GI bleeding was the predominant major bleeding type (1.0% vs 0.4%/yr), consistent with the GI bleeding excess seen in ROCKET AF and RE-LY 150mg β€” suggesting a class effect of factor Xa inhibitors on GI mucosa.
  • ESUS definition required: (1) non-lacunar brain infarct on CT/MRI, (2) no extracranial/intracranial atherosclerosis β‰₯50%, (3) no major cardioembolic source (no AF on β‰₯24h monitoring), (4) no other specific cause β€” yet this broad definition likely captured heterogeneous mechanisms.
  • Only 3% of patients had prolonged cardiac monitoring (>48h) at enrollment β€” meaning occult AF was likely present in a substantial proportion, yet even these patients didn't benefit from empiric anticoagulation.
  • Together with RE-SPECT ESUS (dabigatran, also negative in 2019), definitively closed the door on empiric anticoagulation for unselected ESUS β€” shifting the field toward ESUS subtyping: PFO closure for shunt-related ESUS, prolonged monitoring for AF detection, and targeted therapy based on mechanism.
  • Post-hoc analysis suggested patients with left atrial enlargement or elevated NT-proBNP (markers of atrial cardiopathy) may have had a trend toward benefit β€” spawning the ARCADIA trial testing apixaban specifically in ESUS with atrial cardiopathy biomarkers.

Design

Study Type: Phase 3, international, randomized, double-blind, event-driven trial

Randomization: 1

Blinding: Double-blind (participants and investigators)

Enrollment Period: December 2014 – September 2017

Follow-up Duration: Mean follow-up of 11 months

Centers: 459

Countries: 31 countries globally

Sample Size: 7213

Analysis: Intention-to-treat; Cox proportional hazards regression


Inclusion Criteria

  • Age β‰₯50 years (or 18–49 with additional vascular risk factor).
  • Ischemic stroke within previous 180 days, confirmed by brain imaging (CT or MRI), with non-lacunar pattern (cortical, subcortical >1.5cm, or involving multiple vascular territories).
  • No major-risk cardioembolic source: no AF or flutter on β‰₯24h cardiac monitoring (Holter or telemetry), no mechanical heart valve, no mitral stenosis, no intracardiac thrombus on echocardiogram.
  • No significant large-artery atherosclerosis: no β‰₯50% stenosis of extracranial or intracranial artery supplying the ischemic territory.
  • No other identified specific cause of stroke (e.g., no arteritis, dissection, or hypercoagulable state).

Exclusion Criteria

  • Known atrial fibrillation or flutter (paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent) β€” any AF of any duration.
  • Clear indication for anticoagulation for any reason (e.g., venous thromboembolism, mechanical valve).
  • Lacunar infarct pattern (subcortical infarct ≀1.5 cm in MCA/PCA territory consistent with small vessel disease).
  • Ipsilateral cervical or intracranial arterial stenosis β‰₯50% in the territory of the index stroke.
  • Creatinine clearance <30 mL/min (MDRD formula) β€” no renal dose adjustment was available.
  • Active major bleeding, bleeding diathesis, or condition conferring high risk of bleeding.
  • Need for dual antiplatelet therapy (e.g., recent coronary stent) or aspirin doses >100 mg/day.
  • Concomitant use of strong dual CYP3A4/P-gp inhibitors or inducers.
  • Severe disabling stroke (mRS >3 at randomization) β€” to ensure functional patients who would benefit from prevention.
  • Planned carotid endarterectomy or stenting, or planned cardiac surgery.

Baseline Characteristics

CharacteristicControlActive
Age (mean Β± SD) - yr66.8 Β± 9.866.7 Β± 9.7
Female sex - no. (%)1431 (39.7)1443 (40.0)
Race (White) - no. (%)2483 (68.8)2478 (68.7)
Race (Asian) - no. (%)626 (17.4)642 (17.8)
Race (Black) - no. (%)265 (7.3)263 (7.3)
Hypertension - no. (%)2534 (70.3)2529 (70.1)
Diabetes mellitus - no. (%)789 (21.9)819 (22.7)
Previous stroke or TIA - no. (%)515 (14.3)497 (13.8)
Coronary artery disease - no. (%)367 (10.2)386 (10.7)
Current smoking - no. (%)583 (16.2)566 (15.7)
Median time from index stroke (IQR) - days37 (18–79)37 (18–80)
Median NIHSS at enrollment (IQR)1 (0–2)1 (0–2)
PFO identified - no. (%)~7% (estimated)~7% (estimated)

Arms

FieldControlRivaroxaban 15 mg
InterventionAspirin 100 mg once daily (enteric-coated). Standard antiplatelet control arm. No loading dose. Patients could also take non-trial aspirin at doses ≀100 mg. Proton pump inhibitors permitted but not mandated. Compliance was approximately 95%.Rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily (lower dose than AF indication of 20 mg). Direct factor Xa inhibitor β€” chosen at reduced dose to optimize the risk-benefit ratio in a non-AF population. No renal dose adjustment was permitted (CrCl <30 excluded). Taken with food to ensure bioavailability. No INR monitoring needed. Double-blind with matching placebo aspirin in both arms.
DurationMean follow-up 11 months (stopped early)Mean follow-up 11 months (stopped early)

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Time to first recurrent ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolismPrimary4.8% annual rate5.1% annual rate1.070.52
Ischemic strokeSecondary4.4% annual rate4.7% annual rateHR 1.060.64
Major bleedingSecondary0.9%1.8%HR 2.000.001
1.8% with rivaroxaban vs 0.9% with aspirinAdverse
Most common major bleeding type in rivaroxaban armAdverse
7 in rivaroxaban, 1 in aspirinAdverse

Criticisms

  • Stopped early at mean 11 months β€” may have missed late-emerging benefit, though the point estimate (HR 1.07) strongly favored aspirin, making late reversal implausible.
  • ESUS is a heterogeneous 'wastebasket' diagnosis β€” lumping PFO-related, atrial cardiopathy, cancer-associated, and aortic arch disease into one category may have diluted a real treatment effect in a subgroup that would benefit from anticoagulation.
  • Only 3% had prolonged cardiac monitoring (>48 hours) before enrollment β€” inadequate to exclude paroxysmal AF. CRYSTAL AF showed 30% AF detection at 3 years with implantable monitors, meaning many ESUS patients likely had occult AF.
  • Used 15mg rivaroxaban (not the AF dose of 20mg) β€” potentially subtherapeutic for truly cardioembolic ESUS, though higher bleeding without efficacy suggests dose was not the issue.
  • No renal dose adjustment (unlike ROCKET AF's 15mg for CrCl 30–49) β€” patients with CrCl <30 were excluded entirely, and no 10mg option was available for borderline renal function.
  • No imaging-based stratification: cortical infarcts (likely embolic) vs deep/subcortical infarcts (possibly small vessel) were treated identically, though different mechanisms may warrant different therapies.
  • Short window for enrollment (up to 6 months post-stroke) but no minimum β€” very early randomization (<2 weeks) may have included patients whose stroke mechanism would have been identified with more time.
  • Industry-sponsored (Bayer/Janssen) β€” same sponsors as ROCKET AF, raising questions about commercial interest in expanding rivaroxaban's indications.
  • Fatal bleeding signal (7 vs 1) was concerning despite small numbers β€” the 7-fold difference in fatal bleeding underscores the harm of empiric anticoagulation in a non-AF population.

Funding

Bayer AG and Janssen Research & Development

Based on: NAVIGATE ESUS (New England Journal of Medicine, 2018)

Authors: Hart RG, Sharma M, Mundl H, et al.

Citation: Hart RG, Sharma M, Mundl H, et al. Rivaroxaban vs Aspirin for Stroke Prevention in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(23):2191–2201.

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.