MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2563858698 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.3417.3417

A Systematic Review Evaluating the Effects of Treatment Duration on Bleeding Due to Factor-specific Oral Anticoagulant Therapy

2012· review· en· W2563858698 sur OpenAlexaff
Chantal Li, Keith K. Lau, Anthony K.C. Chan, Howard H.W. Chan

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2012
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRivaroxabanEdoxabanApixabanDabigatranRandomized controlled trialPulmonary embolismInternal medicineIntensive care medicineWarfarinAtrial fibrillation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3417 Introduction: Oral factor-specific anticoagulants have been a highlight of thrombosis research over the past few years. Apart from predictable pharmacokinetic properties, multiple randomized control trials have demonstrated that they are non-inferior to other traditional anticoagulants in terms of therapeutic activity. These new anticoagulants seem to have a lower bleeding risk when compared with conventional therapy offering the potential for safer therapy over longer durations of treatment. Objectives: This is a systematic review to determine (1) the homogeneity of bleeding-classifications among the randomized trials, and (2) the relationship between bleeding event and treatment duration. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE databases from 1946 to May 2012 were searched using apixaban, betrixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban as keywords. Reviews, case reports, subgroup analyses, ex-vivo, in-vitro, or animal studies were excluded; only randomized controlled trials were included in the final review. Data regarding the study design, study setting, therapeutic intervention, bleeding classification and bleeding outcomes were extracted. The studies were categorized into two major groups: (1) non-operative studies for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism, (2) perioperative studies evaluating patients after knee or hip replacement. Criteria in the Cochrane guidelines were used to define the risk of bias. The definitions of bleeding classification were assessed for homogeneity. Results from studies which had homogeneous bleeding classifications were pooled and the correlation between bleeding events and the duration of treatment was analyzed using the correlation coefficient (R2value). For each drug, the standard dose(s) that were commonly used in the latest clinical trials were chosen to be included in the final analysis. Results: 522 publications were found in the primary search. Two independent investigators identified 43 eligible trials. In general, bleeding events were classified into major and non-major bleeding, with clinically relevant non-major bleeding as a subset of non-major bleeding in newer trials. The definition of major bleeding was relatively homogenous for both non-operative and perioperative studies, although the classification of non-major bleeding events was more heterogeneous. Given that major bleeding events were consistently reported in most studies and the criteria of the classification are comparable, the rate of major bleeding was pooled to evaluate against the duration of treatment. The R2 value was 0.784 for non-operative studies, suggesting that the rate of major bleeding events was moderately associated with the duration of treatment with an event rate of 2.6 bleeds per year. In contrast, the R2value was −0.398 for perioperative studies, suggesting that the duration of treatment was not a determining factor for the rate of major bleeding events in the perioperative population. Conclusion: Although the classification of bleeding events is evolving, the definition of major bleeding has been consistent enough among studies allowing direct comparison and pooled analysis. For patients with thromboembolisms requiring long term anticoagulant therapy at full therapeutic dose for more than 12 months, the literature showed that the risk of having a major bleed was 2.6% per year. Therefore, the decision for long term anticoagulant use should be balanced against the ongoing thrombosis risk. After the acute phase when patients have lower prothrombotic risk, dose reduction should be considered to reduce the risk of bleeding complications. On the other hand, for patients requiring anticoagulant prophylaxis after major surgery, the risk of having major bleed in the immediate post-operative period is not completely dependent on the duration of treatment due to other confounding factors such as the surgical intervention itself. If certain patients are at a high risk of thrombosis after surgery, extended duration of anticoagulant prophylaxis can be safely considered. The results of this systemic review should help physicians and future investigators reducing the bleeding complications associated with new oral factor-specific anticoagulants, thereby improving their therapeutic and prophylactic values. Disclosures: Chan: BMS: Chair of Adjudication Committee, Chair of Adjudication Committee Other; Aventis: Chair of Steering Committee, Chair of Steering Committee Other; Boehringer ingelheim: Member of DMSB for Clinical Trial, Member of DMSB for Clinical Trial Other; Bayer: Consultancy.

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)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,063

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,054
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0150,014
Bibliométrie0,0100,013
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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 Opus0,247
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,187 · 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'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→