MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2304579011 · doi:10.1182/blood.v122.21.1145.1145

Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin For Prevention Of Venous Thromboembolism In Elective Total Hip Replacement: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2013· article· en· W2304579011 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Young, Jason Kielly, Maria Mathews, Andrew Furey, Kuljit Grewal, Lisa Bishop, Carla Dillon, Tiffany Lee, John Hawboldt, Laurie Twells

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Établissements canadiensSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRivaroxabanMedicineLow molecular weight heparinRetrospective cohort studyVenous thromboembolismCohortCohort studySurgeryAnesthesiaThrombosisInternal medicineWarfarinAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Rivaroxaban, an oral anti-Xa inhibitor, was approved in 2008 in Canada for prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) post elective total hip replacement (THR). Studies completed in elective THR patients showed superiority or noninferiority of rivaroxaban over injectable low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for prevention of VTE, with no difference in trial defined major bleeding. Many centres use rivaroxaban for VTE prevention post THR as standard of care. Our centre introduced rivaroxaban for THR patients in May 2009. As there is limited data on real world experience with this agent, beyond bleeding and VTE events, we evaluated the change in VTE prophylaxis for this indication. Methods A retrospective cohort study was completed comparing the change in use of a LMWH, enoxaparin, to rivaroxaban for VTE prophylaxis for elective THR patients ≥ 19 years not requiring therapeutic anticoagulation. The setting was a regional health authority servicing a population of 290 000, and the timeframe was 18 months before and 18 months after the introduction of rivaroxaban, allowing a 3 month period in between for incorporation of rivaroxaban into routine care. Patients with THR completed pre introduction of rivaroxaban were in the enoxaparin (E) group and patients with THR completed post introduction were in either the enoxaparin and rivaroxaban (E+R, given sequentially) group, or the rivaroxaban (R) group. Data were abstracted from computerized and paper records using a standardized form. Data collected included demographics, medical and medication history, risk factors for bleeding and VTE, type of anesthesia, VTE prophylaxis details, post-discharge community health (CH) nursing visits and hospital visits (emergency room (ER) and inpatient admissions), and major bleeding or VTE events. Hospital visits and VTE were assessed up to 30 days, and major bleeding up to 2 days, after the last presumed dose of medication. Primary outcomes were differences between E, E+R, and R in hospital visits, as well as referrals to, and reasons for, post discharge CH nursing visits. Results There were 246 THR procedures in E, 43 in E+R, and 190 in R. Baseline characteristics were similar between the three groups. For E, E+R, R, 52%, 49% and 53% were female with a mean age of 64, 62, 64 years and a mean BMI of 31, 32, 31 kg/m2. There was no difference in surgery duration (mean 92, 97, 91 min for E, E+R, R), or number of patients transfused (19, 16, 14% for E, E+R, R). More patients (74%) in E+R received regional anesthesia exclusively, compared to E (57%) and R (52%), p=0.01. There was no difference in post-surgery time to VTE prophylaxis initiation (mean of 22, 22, 23 hours for E, E+R, R). There was a difference in the length of stay (mean 7.1, 8.4, 6.3 days for E, E+R, R, p=0.005), as well as total duration of prophylaxis (mean 10.4, 16.1, 14.5 days for E, E+R, R, p<0.0001). Patients in the E+R sequentially received a mean of 1.7 days of enoxaparin, then 14.2 days of rivaroxaban. Post discharge, there was no difference in the number of patients with at least one ER visit (7.3, 9.3, 6.3% for E, E+R, R, p=0.775) or hospital admission (3.3, 9.3, 2.6%, p=0.096). Most patients had a referral for CH nursing visits (94, 91, 95% for E, E+R, R, p=0.253). Most referrals requested dressing changes (81, 77, 82% for E, E+R, R, p=0.720) and removal of staples (91, 96, 91%, for E, E+R, R, p=0.671). The mean number of days post discharge for staple removal was 4.1, 4.3, 5.1 days for E, E+R, R, p<0.0001. The most common frequency of dressing changes requested was every 2 days (74, 63, 60% for E, E+R, R, p=0.009). Medication administration was requested for patients in E only (84, 0, 0% for E, E+R, R, p<0.0001), with a frequency of once daily (98%). Symptomatic VTE occurred in 1.6, 2.3, and 2.1% of patients for E, E+R, and R. There were 5 major bleeding events in E (2 extra-surgical site bleeds, 3 unexpected surgical site bleeds), and 0 events in both E+R and R. Conclusion This study provides useful data, beyond VTE and bleeding events, on the impact of a change in VTE prophylaxis post elective THR. No statistically significant difference was observed in post discharge hospital visits. Most patients had post discharge CH nursing visits requested; the overall requested visit frequency was reduced for all patients receiving rivaroxaban. Differences in type of anesthesia, length of stay, and duration of prophylaxis were noted for E+R. Differences between this group and R should be further explored. Disclosures: Grewal: Bayer: Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,013

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,285
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→Travaux en français237 207→