Objective To compare the risk of readmissions for major bleeding within one year between apixaban and rivaroxaban as a component of triple antithrombotic therapy. Methods This study was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at two academic medical centers in the Western New York and New York City region between July 1, 2011 and September 25, 2019. Adult patients were included if they were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism and discharged on new triple antithrombotic therapy. The primary outcome compared the rates of 1-year readmission for major bleeding between apixaban and rivaroxaban groups. Secondary outcomes included rate of ischemic outcomes. Time to event analysis was determined with a Kaplan–Meier plot and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR). Results A total of 378 patients were included in the study, 212 in the apixaban group and 166 in the rivaroxaban group. Within 1 year, readmission for major bleeding events occurred in six (2.8%) patients in the apixaban group and four (2.4%) patients in the rivaroxaban group (P = 1.000). After adjustment, the major bleeding event rate was not statistically significantly different between apixaban and rivaroxaban [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12–3.77; P = 0.6624]. Higher albumin levels were identified to be protective against major bleeding related readmission events (aHR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05–0.63; P = 0.0072). The ischemic outcome occurred in seven (3.3%) patients in the apixaban group and three (1.8%) in the rivaroxaban group (P = 0.7368). Conclusion Use of apixaban or rivaroxaban in a triple antithrombotic regimen was not associated with bleeding or ischemic outcomes.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 is a global health threat often accompanied with coagulopathy. Despite use of thromboprophylaxis in this population, thrombotic event rates are high. Materials and methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study comparing the safety and effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis strategies at 2 institutions in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Regimen A utilized a higher-than-standard thromboprophylaxis dosage and Regimen B received full-dose anticoagulation for any D-dimer 3 mcg/mL or greater and prophylactic for less than 3 mcg/mL. The primary outcome compared the rate of thrombotic events between treatment groups. Secondary endpoints compared rates of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding as well as the proportion of patients in each group experiencing thrombotic events within 30 days of discharge. Results: One-hundred fifty-three patients were included in the analysis, 64 receiving Regimen A and 89 receiving Regimen B. Seven (4.6%) thrombotic events occurred, 3 (4.7%) in patients receiving Regimen A, and 4 (4.5%) in Regimen B ( P = 1.0). Twelve patients (13.5%) receiving Regimen B had a bleeding event versus 2 (3.1%) in Regimen A ( P = .04), half of which were major in each group. All patients who bled in either treatment group were receiving mechanical ventilation, and 12 of 14 were receiving full-dose anticoagulation. One patient receiving Regimen A was readmitted with a pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: In this study, the thromboprophylactic regimen impacted bleeding, but no significant difference was seen with thrombotic outcomes. Almost all patients who experienced a bleed were mechanically ventilated and receiving full-dose anticoagulation. The use of full-dose anticoagulation should be cautioned in this population without an additional indication.