Practical management of bleeding in patients receiving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are increasingly used in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and in the prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. In phase III clinical trials and meta-analyses, the NOACs were at least as effective as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and were associated with a similar or lower incidence of major bleeding, including consistent and significant decreases in intracranial bleeding, although with an increase in gastrointestinal bleeding for some agents compared with VKAs. Subsequent real-world evidence supports these outcomes. Despite this, physicians have concerns about serious bleeding or emergencies because there are no specific reversal agents for the NOACs. However, in clinical trials, patients receiving NOACs generally had similar or better outcomes after these events than those taking VKAs. As with any bleeding, anticoagulant-related bleeding should first be stratified according to severity and location; risk can be minimised by ongoing assessment. Management protocols for NOAC-related bleeding are similar to those for VKAs but should take into account the pharmacological profile of the specific drug. Because of their short half-lives, NOAC-related mild bleeding can often be controlled by temporarily withholding treatment. More severe bleeding requires standard escalating haemodynamic support measures, and non-specific reversal agents can be considered in life-threatening situations, based on limited clinical data. Specific and rapid reversal agents are not currently available for any oral anticoagulant and restoration of coagulation may not necessarily lead to better outcomes. Nevertheless, specific NOAC reversal agents are in development and show promise in healthy volunteers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".