Randomized clinical trial of postoperative fondaparinux <i>versus</i> perioperative dalteparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk abdominal surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether the synthetic factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism more efficiently than the low molecular weight heparin dalteparin in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: In a double-blind double-dummy randomized study, patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia received once-daily subcutaneous injections of fondaparinux 2.5 mg or dalteparin 5000 units for 5-9 days. Fondaparinux was started 6 h after surgery. The first two doses of dalteparin, 2500 units each, were given 2 h before surgery and 12 h after the preoperative administration. The primary outcome measure was a composite of deep vein thrombosis detected by bilateral venography and symptomatic, confirmed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism up until day 10. The main safety outcome measure was major bleeding during treatment. RESULTS: Among 2048 patients evaluable for efficacy, the rate of venous thromboembolism was 4.6 per cent (47 of 1027) with fondaparinux compared with 6.1 per cent (62 of 1021) with dalteparin, a relative risk reduction of 24.6 (95 per cent confidence interval -9.0 to 47.9) per cent (P = 0.144), which met the predetermined criterion for non-inferiority of fondaparinux. Major bleeding was observed in 49 (3.4 per cent) of 1433 patients given fondaparinux and 34 (2.4 per cent) of 1425 given dalteparin (P = 0.122). CONCLUSION: Postoperative fondaparinux was at least as effective as perioperative dalteparin in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".