Use and Outcomes of Secondary Anticoagulation in Patients <21 Years Old Following Completion of a Primary Course of Anticoagulation for Treatment of Acute Provoked VTE: Findings from the Multinational Kids-DOTT Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Although the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence is low among pediatric patients with provoked VTE, children with a history of VTE who have persistent prothrombotic risk factors such as central venous catheters (CVCs), thrombophilia and cancer have been shown to have increased risk for recurrent VTE (e.g., Brandao et al., Lancet Hematology 2020). Prospective multicenter data on the use of secondary anticoagulation in patients with a first provoked VTE are limited. Objective: We sought to characterize the use and outcomes of secondary anticoagulation in patients <21 years old with provoked VTE, via the multinational Kids-DOTT trial. We hypothesized that older patient age is associated with use of secondary anticoagulation among patients with provoked VTE who have persistent prothrombotic risk factors following completion of a primary course of anticoagulation for treatment of acute provoked VTE, and that frequencies of clinically relevant bleeding and recurrent VTE are low in this setting. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of patients enrolled in the NIH-sponsored, multinational randomized controlled Kids-DOTT trial (NCT00687882; Goldenberg et al., JAMA 2022) who received secondary anticoagulation. We defined secondary anticoagulation as anticoagulant use beyond the initial treatment period of 6-12 weeks for the purpose of secondary VTE prevention, as captured in case report forms. “Chronic” secondary anticoagulation was defined as that which began within 2 weeks of the prescribed treatment course; otherwise, secondary anticoagulation was defined as “episodic”. The presence of new and/or recurrent prothrombotic risk factors was captured in association with each episode. Variables were summarized as counts and percentages for categorical variables and medians with interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables. To compare groups that did versus did not receive secondary anticoagulation, Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and chi-square, or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables, with alpha <0.05 considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team, 2021). Results: Among 532 patients enrolled in the Kids-DOTT trial, 18 (3.4%) received secondary anticoagulation, all of whom had persistence or recurrence of prothrombotic risk factors (Table 1). The most frequent prothrombotic risk factors associated with use of secondary anticoagulation were a new or persistent central venous catheter (28%, N=5) and infection (17%, N=3). Despite having persistence or recurrence of prothrombotic risk factors, only 1 patient who received secondary anticoagulation developed recurrent VTE and 2 patients experienced clinically relevant bleeding during a median follow-up of 1.99 years [IQR 1.06-2.02], none of which was temporally related to secondary anticoagulation use. As shown in Table 2, patients who received secondary anticoagulation were older (median 12.9 years [IQR 7.6-15.5 years] vs. 8 years [1-15 years], P=0.05) and more likely to have upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (50% vs. 29%; P=0.003) when compared to those who did not receive secondary anticoagulation. Conclusion: These findings suggest that use of secondary anticoagulation is low among patients <21 years old with provoked VTE. However, among those who receive secondary anticoagulation for persistent or recurrent prothrombotic risk factors, the risks of recurrent VTE and clinically relevant bleeding may be low. Furthermore, focused study of use and outcomes of chronic and episodic secondary anticoagulation is warranted to inform future practice on secondary prevention in children, adolescents, and young adults with a history of provoked VTE.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».