An Attempt to Reach Consensus Regarding Management of Neonatal Renal Vein Thrombosis: The Canadian Pediatric Hemostasis and Thrombosis Network Experience.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Renal vein thrombosis (RVT) is the most frequent site of primary venous thrombosis in neonates. At present, there is no conventional therapeutic regimen for this condition. Objective: To establish current clinical guidelines based on data from the Canadian Pediatric Hemostasis and Thrombosis Network (CPHTN). Materials and Methods: A standardized questionnaire was sent to CPHTN members involved with pediatric thrombosis care. Clinical variables included thrombus location (unilateral vs. bilateral), severity (non-occlusive vs. occlusive), extension to the inferior vena cava (IVC+), and concomitant bleeding at diagnosis [i.e. hematuria with thrombocytopenia (H/T+), with/without ≥ grade 2 intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH+/−)]. Results: A total of 16 pediatric hematologists participated, with a response rate of approximately 80%. Regarding diagnostic imaging, the most utilized methods were the following: a) Doppler ultrasound (U/S) in 14/16 (87.5%); b) U/S without Doppler in 1/16 (6.25%); and c) contrast venography in 1/16 (6.25%). 12/16 (75%) of the physicians would have ordered a thrombophilia work up. For unilateral, non-occlusive, H/T− or H/T+ cases, management included, respectively: 1) no therapy in 11/16 (68.75%) and 9/16 (56.25%); 2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in 2/16 (12.5%) (3-month-course) and 3/16 (18.75%) (14-day or 3-month course); and 3) therapy based on radiologic follow up (f/u) in 3/16 (18.75%) and 4/16 (25%). For unilateral, occlusive, H/T+, IVH− or IVH+ cases, management included: 1) no therapy in 5/16 (31.25%) and 10/16 (62.5%); 2) LMWH in 6/16 (37.5%) and 4/16 (25%); and 3) treatment based on f/u findings in 5/16 (31.25%) and 2/16 (12.5%). For bilateral, occlusive, IVC−, IVH− cases, management included: 1) LMWH (2 weeks to 3 months) in 12/16 (75%); 2) tissue-plasminogen activator (t-PA) in 1/16 (6.25%); 3) LMWH and t-PA in 2/16 (12.5%); and 4) therapy based on f/u in 1/16 (6.25%). Finally, for bilateral, occlusive, IVC+, IVH− or +, the responses were, in that order: 1) LMWH (6 weeks to 3 months) in 10/16 (62.5%) and 11/16 (68.75%); 2) t-PA in 3/16 (18.75%) and 0/16; 3) LMWH and t-PA in 2/16 (12.5%) and 0/16; 4) treatment based on f/u in 1/16 (6.25%) in both groups; 5) no therapy in 2/16 (12.5%) of the latter group only; and 6) unknown in 2/16 (12.5%) of the latter group only. The anti-Xa level (0.5 to 1.0 range) was the only assay suggested for monitoring LMWH. Standard heparin was monitored by anti-Xa levels in only 3/16 (18.75%) of cases. Consultation sources included 1) combined sources (i.e. books, protocols, journals) in 10/16 (62.5%) cases; 2) journals in 4/16 (25%) cases; and 3) 1-800-NO-CLOTS in 2/16 (12.5%) cases. 15/16 (93.75%) of the participating physicians supported the idea of developing therapeutic protocols. Conclusions: Currently, there are no standard therapeutic practices with respect to neonatal RVT. It would be difficult to successfully complete a randomized clinical trial due to small numbers. However, multicenter, prospective studies utilizing consistent therapeutic approaches would be extremely helpful in this clinical setting.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».