↓ Skip to main content

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1191 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1709118
Pubmed ID
Authors

John W. Eikelboom, Stuart J. Connolly, Jackie Bosch, Gilles R. Dagenais, Robert G. Hart, Olga Shestakovska, Rafael Diaz, Marco Alings, Eva M. Lonn, Sonia S. Anand, Petr Widimsky, Masatsugu Hori, Alvaro Avezum, Leopoldo S. Piegas, Kelley R.H. Branch, Jeffrey Probstfield, Deepak L. Bhatt, Jun Zhu, Yan Liang, Aldo P. Maggioni, Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo, Martin O’Donnell, Ajay K. Kakkar, Keith A.A. Fox, Alexander N. Parkhomenko, Georg Ertl, Stefan Störk, Matyas Keltai, Lars Ryden, Nana Pogosova, Antonio L. Dans, Fernando Lanas, Patrick J. Commerford, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Tomek J. Guzik, Peter B. Verhamme, Dragos Vinereanu, Jae-Hyung Kim, Andrew M. Tonkin, Basil S. Lewis, Camilo Felix, Khalid Yusoff, P. Gabriel Steg, Kaj P. Metsarinne, Nancy Cook Bruns, Frank Misselwitz, Edmond Chen, Darryl Leong, Salim Yusuf

Abstract

Background We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. Methods In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. Results The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. Conclusions Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,122 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1191 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 177 15%
Researcher 173 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 108 9%
Student > Postgraduate 95 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 91 8%
Other 298 25%
Unknown 249 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 612 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 85 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 2%
Other 101 8%
Unknown 320 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1557. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2021.
All research outputs
#4,335
of 19,191,377 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#264
of 29,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78
of 284,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#5
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,191,377 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.