Anticoagulation Bridging Around Device Surgery: Compliance with Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend bridging anticoagulation in patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device surgery with a "moderate to high risk" of thromboembolism. Patients at "low risk" are advised to stop oral anticoagulation without bridging to the procedure. This study examines real world adherence to accepted guidelines and the clinical sequelae of nonadherence. METHODS: We performed a review of all patients undergoing device surgery receiving chronic anticoagulation over a prespecified time period of 14 months. Patients were classified per American College of Chest Physician guidelines as "moderate/high risk" or "low risk" of thromboembolism. We then compared perioperative management of anticoagulation to guideline recommendations and assessed the rate of perioperative bleeding and thromboembolism. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine patients were included in this study. Sixty-two (48%) were classified as "moderate/high risk" and 67 (52%) "low risk." In the "moderate/high risk" group 47/62 (76%) received perioperative anticoagulation but only 25/62 (40%) were bridged both pre- and postprocedure or maintained on uninterrupted warfarin. In the "low risk" group, 22/67 (33%) received bridging therapy. Device pocket hematoma or perioperative bleeding occurred in 10/129 (8%) with 4/10 receiving inappropriate bridging for a calculated low risk of thromboembolism. There were no perioperative thromboembolisms. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified significant underutilization of bridging, particularly in the postoperative period, in patients at "moderate/high risk" of thromboembolism. Conversely, bridging was overused in "low risk" patients and associated with bleeding complications. Physicians should be urged to follow current expert guidelines in regard to bridging anticoagulation for cardiac rhythm device surgery. (PACE 2012;35:1480-1486).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".