低剂量利伐沙班未能阻止低风险房颤患者的认知功能下降:BRAIN-AF试验结果

低剂量利伐沙班未能阻止低风险房颤患者的认知功能下降:BRAIN-AF试验结果

亮点

  • BRAIN-AF试验评估了15 mg利伐沙班每日一次是否能预防低血栓栓塞风险(CHA2DS2-VASc评分为0-1)的房颤(AF)患者的认知功能下降、中风或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)。
  • 在中期分析显示治疗效果达到统计学显著性的概率仅为1.2%后,试验因无效而提前终止。
  • 利伐沙班组和安慰剂组的认知功能下降率都很高(每年分别为7.0%和6.4%),这表明除大血栓栓塞外,其他因素可能驱动低风险AF人群的神经认知损害。
  • 安全性结局良好,治疗组和对照组的主要出血年发生率均较低。

背景:房颤与认知功能的关系

房颤(AF)的传统管理重点是预防缺血性中风和系统性栓塞。然而,越来越多的证据表明,房颤的负担不仅限于急性神经系统事件,还包括慢性、进行性的认知功能障碍和痴呆。观察性研究一致认为,即使没有临床中风,房颤也是认知功能下降的独立危险因素。假设机制通常涉及亚临床脑微栓塞,可能导致累积性白质损伤和无症状梗死。

当前临床指南强烈建议对CHAD2DS2-VASc评分较高的患者使用口服抗凝药(OAC)。然而,对于低血栓栓塞风险(评分为0或1,不包括女性性别)的患者,OAC的益处仍是一个激烈争论的话题。虽然这些患者发生重大中风的风险较低,但他们仍可能容易受到房颤的细微、累积性神经认知影响。BRAIN-AF(房颤中抗凝预防缺血性中风和神经认知损害的盲法随机试验)旨在通过研究低剂量利伐沙班是否能在低风险人群中减轻这些风险来解决这一临床不确定性。

研究设计与方法

BRAIN-AF研究是一项多中心、双盲、安慰剂对照的随机临床试验。该研究从多个临床站点招募了1,235名参与者,目标为1,424人。纳入标准集中在有记录的房颤和低血栓栓塞风险的个体,定义为CHAD2DS2-VASc评分为0或1(不包括女性性别的评分点)。

参与者以1:1的比例随机分配接受利伐沙班15 mg每日一次或匹配的安慰剂。值得注意的是,15 mg的剂量低于通常用于预防房颤患者中风的标准20 mg剂量;这一选择旨在平衡潜在的神经保护益处与低风险队列中的出血风险。

主要结局是复合终点,包括:
1. 认知功能下降,定义为蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)得分下降2分或更多。
2. 缺血性中风。
3. 伴有运动障碍或失语的短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)。

次要结局包括主要复合终点的各个组成部分、主要出血事件和总体死亡率。试验设计包括计划中的中期分析,以评估疗效或无效。

关键发现:抗凝药物对神经保护的无效性

在计划中的中期分析符合预定的无效标准后,BRAIN-AF试验被提前终止。截至停止时,共招募了1,235名参与者(919名男性和316名女性),中位随访时间为3.7年。

主要结局分析

主要复合结局发生在256名参与者(总队列的20.7%)中。具体而言,利伐沙班组的年度主要结局发生率为7.0%,安慰剂组为6.4%。相应的风险比(HR)为1.10,95%置信区间(CI)为0.86至1.40(P = 0.46)。这些数据表明两组之间没有显著差异,条件功效分析估计如果试验达到1,424名参与者的完整招募,只有1.2%的概率达到统计学显著性。

认知功能下降的发生率

试验中最引人注目的发现是整个研究人群中无论治疗如何,认知功能下降的发生率都很高。MoCA量表上下降2分或更多是复合终点的主要驱动因素。这种在相对年轻、低风险人群中发生的高下降率凸显了房颤相关的神经认知损害的显著负担,同时表明低剂量利伐沙班不是解决这一特定问题的有效干预措施。

安全性和出血风险

关于安全性,试验报告称主要出血事件很少见。利伐沙班组中有两名患者(每年0.09%)和安慰剂组中有五名患者(每年0.21%)发生了主要出血事件。这证实了虽然干预措施对主要终点无效,但低剂量利伐沙班方案在这一低风险人群中相对安全。

专家评论与机制见解

BRAIN-AF试验的结果对房颤中认知功能下降主要由亚临床微栓塞引起的主流假说提出了复杂的挑战。如果微栓塞是主要原因,那么像利伐沙班这样强大的抗凝药物应该显示出至少有趋势的神经保护作用。缺乏任何这样的趋势以及两组中认知功能下降的高发生率表明,其他机制可能在起作用。

房颤相关认知功能下降的潜在替代机制包括:
1. 脑低灌注:房颤的心率不规则可能导致每次心跳的射血量波动,从而导致慢性脑低灌注和随后的白质疾病。
2. 共同危险因素:房颤和痴呆有共同的前体,如高血压、糖尿病和全身炎症。这些因素可能独立于栓塞事件推动神经退行性病变。
3. 微出血:还有一种可能是,即使是低剂量抗凝药物也可能增加脑微出血的风险,从而抵消预防微梗死的任何益处。

批评者和评论员还质疑15 mg剂量的利伐沙班是否足以实现预期的神经保护效果,或者MoCA量表是否足够敏感,能够捕捉到与房颤相关血管损伤相关的特定类型认知变化。然而,因无效而提前终止的试验强烈表明,标准抗凝策略不是低中风风险患者认知保护的主要策略。

结论与临床意义

BRAIN-AF试验提供了高质量的证据,表明对于低血栓栓塞风险(CHAD2DS2-VASc评分为0-1)的房颤患者,启动低剂量利伐沙班不能预防认知功能下降、中风或TIA。虽然该研究确认了房颤患者中认知功能恶化的高发率,但它有效地排除了在这一特定亚组中使用OAC作为主要神经保护策略的可能性。

对于临床医生,这些结果强化了遵循现行指南的重要性,即不强制要求CHAD2DS2-VASc评分为0(男性)或1(女性)的患者使用抗凝药物。未来的研究应关注识别房颤相关认知损害的非栓塞途径,可能调查心率和节律控制策略、心血管危险因素的积极管理或针对脑灌注和神经炎症的新治疗靶点。

资金来源与ClinicalTrials.gov

BRAIN-AF试验得到了多项研究资助和机构资金的支持(详见全文)。ClinicalTrials.gov注册号:NCT02387229。

参考文献

Rivard L, Khairy P, Talajic M, et al. Anticoagulation to prevent ischemic stroke and neurocognitive impairment in atrial fibrillation: the BRAIN-AF randomized clinical trial. Nat Med. 2026;32(1):297-305. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04101-y.

Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Fails to Halt Cognitive Decline in Low-Risk Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the BRAIN-AF Trial

Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Fails to Halt Cognitive Decline in Low-Risk Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the BRAIN-AF Trial

Highlights

  • The BRAIN-AF trial evaluated whether 15 mg of rivaroxaban daily could prevent cognitive decline, stroke, or TIA in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and low thromboembolic risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score 0-1).
  • The trial was stopped early for futility after an interim analysis showed a 1.2% probability of achieving a statistically significant treatment effect.
  • Cognitive decline occurred at a high rate in both the rivaroxaban and placebo groups (7.0% vs. 6.4% per year), suggesting that factors beyond macro-thromboembolism may drive neurocognitive impairment in low-risk AF populations.
  • Safety outcomes remained favorable, with low annual rates of major bleeding in both the treatment and control arms.

Background: The Interplay Between Atrial Fibrillation and Cognition

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is traditionally managed with a focus on preventing ischemic stroke and systemic embolism. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that the burden of AF extends beyond acute neurological events to include chronic, progressive cognitive impairment and dementia. Observational studies have consistently identified AF as an independent risk factor for cognitive decline, even in the absence of clinical stroke. The hypothesized mechanism often involves subclinical cerebral micro-emboli, which may lead to cumulative white matter damage and silent infarcts.

Current clinical guidelines strongly recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) for patients with elevated CHA2DS2-VASc scores. However, the benefit of OAC in patients with a low thromboembolic risk (scores of 0 or 1, excluding female sex) remains a subject of intense debate. While these patients are at low risk for major strokes, they may still be vulnerable to the subtle, cumulative neurocognitive effects of AF. The BRAIN-AF (Blinded Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation to Prevent Ischemic Stroke and Neurocognitive Impairment in Atrial Fibrillation) trial was designed to address this clinical uncertainty by investigating whether low-dose rivaroxaban could mitigate these risks in a low-risk population.

Study Design and Methodology

The BRAIN-AF study was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial. The study enrolled 1,235 participants out of an intended 1,424 from various clinical sites. The inclusion criteria focused on individuals with documented AF and low thromboembolic risk, defined as a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1 (excluding the point for female sex).

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily or a matching placebo. It is notable that the 15 mg dose is lower than the standard 20 mg dose typically used for stroke prevention in AF patients with normal renal function; this choice was intended to balance potential neuroprotective benefits against the risk of bleeding in a lower-risk cohort.

The primary outcome was a composite endpoint consisting of:
1. Cognitive decline, defined as a drop of 2 points or more on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).
2. Ischemic stroke.
3. Transient ischemic attack (TIA) associated with a motor deficit or aphasia.</n

Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite, major bleeding events, and overall mortality. The trial was designed with a planned interim analysis to assess for efficacy or futility.

Key Findings: The Futility of Anticoagulation for Neuroprotection

The BRAIN-AF trial was halted prematurely following a planned interim analysis which met the predetermined criterion for futility. At the time of cessation, 1,235 participants (919 men and 316 women) had been enrolled, with a median follow-up period of 3.7 years.

Primary Outcome Analysis

The primary composite outcome occurred in 256 participants (20.7% of the total cohort). Specifically, the annual rate of the primary outcome was 7.0% in the rivaroxaban group compared to 6.4% in the placebo group. The resulting hazard ratio (HR) was 1.10, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.86 to 1.40 (P = 0.46). These data indicated no significant difference between the two groups, and a conditional power analysis estimated only a 1.2% chance of achieving statistical significance had the trial reached its full enrollment of 1,424 participants.

Cognitive Decline Incidence

Perhaps the most striking finding of the trial was the high incidence of cognitive decline across the entire study population, regardless of treatment. A drop of 2 or more points on the MoCA scale was the primary driver of the composite endpoint. This high rate of decline in a relatively young, low-risk population underscores the significant burden of neurocognitive impairment associated with AF, yet it simultaneously demonstrates that low-dose rivaroxaban is not an effective intervention for this specific issue.

Safety and Bleeding Risks

Regarding safety, the trial reported that major bleeding was rare. Only two patients in the rivaroxaban group (0.09% per year) and five patients in the placebo group (0.21% per year) experienced major bleeding events. This confirms that while the intervention was not effective for the primary endpoint, the low-dose rivaroxaban regimen was relatively safe in this low-risk demographic.

Expert Commentary and Mechanistic Insights

The results of the BRAIN-AF trial present a complex challenge to the prevailing hypothesis that subclinical micro-emboli are the primary cause of cognitive decline in AF. If micro-emboli were the dominant factor, one would expect a potent anticoagulant like rivaroxaban to show at least a trend toward neuroprotection. The lack of any such trend—and the high rate of decline in both groups—suggests that other mechanisms may be at play.

Potential alternative mechanisms for AF-related cognitive decline include:
1. Cerebral Hypoperfusion: The irregular heart rate in AF can lead to beat-to-beat variability in stroke volume, potentially causing chronic cerebral hypoperfusion and subsequent white matter disease.
2. Shared Risk Factors: AF and dementia share common precursors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and systemic inflammation. These factors may drive neurodegeneration independently of embolic events.
3. Micro-hemorrhages: It is also possible that even low-dose anticoagulation could increase the risk of cerebral micro-bleeds, which might offset any benefit gained from preventing micro-infarcts.

Critics and commentators have also questioned whether the 15 mg dose of rivaroxaban was sufficient to achieve the desired neuroprotective effect, or if the MoCA scale is sensitive enough to capture the specific types of cognitive changes associated with AF-related vascular injury. However, the early termination for futility strongly suggests that standard anticoagulation strategies are not the answer for cognitive preservation in low-stroke-risk patients.

Conclusion and Clinical Implications

The BRAIN-AF trial provides high-quality evidence that for patients with AF and low thromboembolic risk (CHA2DS2-VASc 0-1), initiating low-dose rivaroxaban does not prevent cognitive decline, stroke, or TIA. While the study confirms the high prevalence of cognitive deterioration in AF patients, it effectively closes the door on the use of OACs as a primary neuroprotective strategy in this specific subgroup.

For clinicians, these results reinforce the importance of adhering to current guidelines, which do not mandate anticoagulation for patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 (men) or 1 (women). Future research should focus on identifying the non-embolic pathways of AF-related cognitive impairment, potentially investigating rate and rhythm control strategies, aggressive management of cardiovascular risk factors, or novel therapeutic targets that address cerebral perfusion and neuroinflammation.

Funding and ClinicalTrials.gov

The BRAIN-AF trial was supported by various research grants and institutional funds (detailed in the full manuscript). ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02387229.

References

Rivard L, Khairy P, Talajic M, et al. Anticoagulation to prevent ischemic stroke and neurocognitive impairment in atrial fibrillation: the BRAIN-AF randomized clinical trial. Nat Med. 2026;32(1):297-305. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04101-y.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

发表回复