Circulation Journal
Online ISSN : 1347-4820
Print ISSN : 1346-9843
Rivaroxaban vs. Warfarin in Japanese Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
– The J-ROCKET AF Study –
Masatsugu HoriMasayasu MatsumotoNorio TanahashiShin-ichi MomomuraShinichiro UchiyamaShinya GotoTohru IzumiYukihiro KoretsuneMariko KajikawaMasaharu KatoHitoshi UedaKazuya IwamotoMasahiro Tajirion behalf of the J-ROCKET AF study investigators
Author information

2012 Volume 76 Issue 9 Pages 2104-2111


Background: The global ROCKET AF study evaluated once-daily rivaroxaban vs. warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). A separate trial, J-ROCKET AF, compared the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose with warfarin administered according to Japanese guidelines in Japanese patients with AF. Methods and Results: J-ROCKET AF was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients (n=1,280) with non-valvular AF at increased risk for stroke were randomized to receive 15mg once-daily rivaroxaban or warfarin dose-adjusted according to Japanese guidelines. The primary objective was to determine non-inferiority of rivaroxaban against warfarin for the principal safety outcome of major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding, in the on-treatment safety population. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin was confirmed; the rate of the principal safety outcome was 18.04% per year in rivaroxaban-treated patients and 16.42% per year in warfarin-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval 0.87–1.42; P<0.001 [non-inferiority]). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 0.8% with rivaroxaban and 1.6% with warfarin. There was a strong trend for a reduction in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin (HR, 0.49; P=0.050). Conclusions: J-ROCKET AF demonstrated the safety of a Japan-specific rivaroxaban dose and supports bridging the global ROCKET AF results into Japanese clinical practice.  (Circ J 2012; 76: 2104–2111)

Information related to the author
Previous article Next article