Essentials The safety of apixaban in patients on dialysis is currently debated.Bleeding events were retrospectively compared for dialysis patients on warfarin vs apixaban.Overall bleeding events were significantly less frequent in apixaban group compared to warfarin group.Apixaban appears to be a safe and effective choice for anticoagulation in patients on dialysis. BackgroundThe use of apixaban for stroke prophylaxis or for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients maintained on dialysis is based on one single‐dose pharmacokinetic study. There is a deficiency of clinical evidence supporting safety in this population.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin in dialysis patients.Patients/methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study conducted at the University of Virginia Medical Center. A total of 124 ESRD patients maintained on dialysis who either received apixaban (n = 74) or warfarin (n = 50) between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2016 were included in the study. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the likelihood of patients experiencing a bleeding event based on anticoagulant therapy.ResultsThe apixaban group experienced fewer overall bleeding events than the warfarin group (18.9% vs 42.0%; P = .01); this significant difference persisted in adjusted analysis (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.05‐0.46; P = .001). Major bleeding events were less frequent in the apixaban group compared with patients on warfarin (5.4% vs 22.0%; P = .01). There were no recurrent ischemic strokes in either groups. A lower, non‐significant, incidence of recurrent VTE was found in patients on apixaban compared with warfarin (4.4% vs 28.6%; P = .99).ConclusionCompared to warfarin, our findings suggest that apixaban is a safe and effective alternative in patients with ESRD maintained on dialysis, with apixaban patients experiencing fewer bleeding events than warfarin patients.

No abstract

Purpose: The experimental verification of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was conducted in a heterogeneous rectangular slab phantom, and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The dosimetric impact of the AXB for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and RapidArc planning for 16 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was assessed due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB. Methods: The calculated central axis percentage depth doses (PDD) in a heterogeneous slab phantom for an open field size of 3 × 3 cm 2 were compared against the PDD measured by an ionization chamber. For 16 NSCLC patients, the dose-volume parameters from the treatment plans calculated by the AXB and the AAA were compared using identical jaw settings, leaf positions, and monitor units (MUs). Results: The results from the heterogeneous slab phantom study showed that the AXB was more accurate than the AAA; however, the dose underestimation by the AXB (up to −3.9%) and AAA (up to −13.5%) was observed. For a planning target volume (PTV) in the NSCLC patients, in comparison to the AAA, the AXB predicted lower mean and minimum doses by average 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, but a higher maximum dose by average 2.3%. The averaged maximum doses to the heart and spinal cord predicted by the AXB were lower by 1.3% and 2.6% respectively; whereas the doses to the lungs predicted by the AXB were higher by up to 0.5% compared to the AAA. The percentage of ipsilateral lung volume receiving at least 20 and 5 Gy (V20 and V5 respectively) were higher in the AXB plans than in the AAA plans by average 1.1% and 2.8% respectively. The AXB plans produced higher target heterogeneity by average 4.5% and lower plan conformity by average 5.8% compared to the AAA plans. Using the AXB, the PTV coverage (95% of the PTV covered by the 100% of the prescribed dose) was reduced by average 8.2% than using the AAA. The AXB plans required about 2.3% increment in the number of MUs in order to achieve the same PTV coverage as in the AAA plans. Conclusion: The AXB is more accurate to use for the dose calculations in SBRT lung plans created with a RapidArc technique; however, one should also note the reduced PTV coverage due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB.