Early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve replacement: a Canadian survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The optimal approach to anticoagulation during the early postoperative period after mechanical valve replacement, by which early thromboembolism is prevented without bleeding complications, is not yet known. The study aim was to examine the practice patterns of Canadian cardiac surgeons with regard to early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve implantation. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 100 Canadian cardiac surgeons in July 2004, and 57 responses were received. Data were collected regarding the approaches to early postoperative anticoagulation following uncomplicated isolated mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mitral valve replacement (MVR). RESULTS: Heparin was administered routinely after AVR and MVR by 63% and 68% of surgeons, respectively. This was most commonly initiated on postoperative day (POD) 1, and given either subcutaneously (AVR, 28%; MVR, 25%) or intravenously (AVR, 33%; MVR, 42%). Alternatively, low-molecular-weight heparin was used by 21% and 23% of surgeons after AVR and MVR, respectively. Oral warfarin was usually started on POD 1 (72% and 68%, respectively), with 40% prescribing an initial dose between 2.5 and 5.0 mg, and 51% administering between 5.1 and 7.5 mg. When heparin was not used, oral anticoagulation was more often administered earlier (AVR, p = 0.003; MVR, p = 0.006), but not at higher doses (AVR, p = 0.07; MVR, p = 0.2). Following surgery, aspirin was prescribed by 61% and 65% of surgeons after AVR and MVR, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study results highlighted a significant variability in the management of early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve implantation. The clinical impact of these findings is unknown, and can only be assessed through a prospective trial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".