BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

Background and Relevance: Atherosclerotic stenosis of the major intracranial arteries is an important cause of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke. Of the 900,000 patients who suffer a TIA or stroke each year in the USA, intracranial stenosis is responsible for approximately 10%, i.e. 90,000 patients. There have been no prospective trials evaluating antithrombotic therapies for preventing recurrent vascular events in these patients. The main objective of this trial is to compare warfarin [International Normalized Ratio (INR) 2–3] with aspirin (1,300 mg/day) for preventing stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) and vascular death in patients presenting with TIA or stroke caused by stenosis of a major intracranial artery. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. The sample sizerequired will be 403 patients per group, based on stroke and vascular death rates of 33% per 3 years in the aspirin group vs. 22% per 3 years in the warfarin group, a p value of 0.05, power of 80%, a 24% rate of ‘withdrawal of therapy’, and a 1% rate of ‘lost to follow-up’. Conduct of Trial: Patients with TIA or nondisabling stroke caused by ≧50% stenosis of a major intracranial artery documented by catheter angiography are randomized to warfarin or aspirin. Patients are contacted monthly by phone and examined every 4 months until a common termination date. Mean follow-up in the study is expected to be 3 years. Conclusion: This study will determine whether warfarin or aspirin is superior for patients with symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. Furthermore, it will identify patients whose rate of ischemic stroke in the territory of the stenotic intracranial artery on best medical therapy is sufficiently high to justify a subsequent trial comparing intracranial angioplasty/stenting with best medical therapy in this subset of patients.

IMPORTANCEThe use of perioperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics is standard practice to reduce the risk of surgical site infection after oncologic resection and complex endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity bone tumors. However, evidence guiding the duration of prophylactic treatment remains limited.OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of a 5-day regimen of postoperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics compared with a 1-day regimen on the rate of surgical site infections within 1 year after surgery.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 48 clinical sites in 12 countries from January 1, 2013, to October 29, 2019. The trial included patients with a primary bone tumor or a soft tissue sarcoma that had invaded the femur or tibia or oligometastatic bone disease of the femur or tibia with expected survival of at least 1 year who required surgical management by excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction. A total of 611 patients were enrolled, and 7 were excluded for ineligibility.INTERVENTIONS A 1-or 5-day regimen of postoperative prophylactic intravenous cephalosporin (cefazolin or cefuroxime) that began within 8 hours after skin closure and was administered every 8 hours thereafter. Those randomized to the 1-day regimen received identical saline doses every 8 hours for the remaining 4 days; patients, care providers, and outcomes assessors were blinded to treatment regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome in this superiority trial was a surgical site infection (superficial incisional, deep incisional, or organ space) classified according to the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic-related complications, unplanned additional operations, oncologic and functional outcomes, and mortality. RESULTSOf the 604 patients included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 41.2 [21.9] years; 361 [59.8%] male; 114 [18.9%] Asian, 43 [7.1%] Black, 34 [5.6%] Hispanic, 15 [2.5%] Indigenous, 384 [63.8%] White, and 12 [2.0%] other), 293 were randomized to a 5-day regimen and 311 to a 1-day regimen. A surgical site infection occurred in 44 patients (15.0%) allocated to the 5-day regimen and in 52 patients (16.7%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.40; P = .73). Antibiotic-related complications occurred in 15 patients (5.1%) in the 5-day regimen and in 5 patients (1.6%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.17-8.98; P = .02). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial did not confirm the superiority of a 5-day regimen of postoperative intravenous antibiotics over a 1-day regimen in preventing surgical site infections after surgery for lower extremity bone tumors that required an endoprosthesis. The 5-day regimen group had significantly more antibiotic-related complications.

PROMIS provides a feasible means to collect data in this population. Trends of improved function and decreased pain were seen after surgery. Continuing this study will hopefully elucidate more insight into the surgical treatment of MBD.