Bridge or continue Coumadin for device surgery: a randomized controlled trial rationale and design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many patients requiring cardiac arrhythmia device surgery are on chronic oral anticoagulation therapy. The periprocedural management of their anticoagulation presents a dilemma to physicians, particularly in the subset of patients with moderate-to-high risk of arterial thromboembolic events. Physicians have responded by treating patients with bridging anticoagulation while oral anticoagulation is temporarily discontinued. However, there are a number of downsides to bridging anticoagulation around device surgery; there is a substantial risk of significant device pocket hematoma with important clinical sequelae; bridging anticoagulation may lead to more arterial thromboembolic events and bridging anticoagulation is expensive. RECENT FINDINGS: In response to these issues, a number of centers have explored the option of performing device surgery without cessation of oral anticoagulation. The observational data suggest a greatly reduced hematoma rate with this strategy. Despite these encouraging results, most physicians are reluctant to move to operating on continued Coumadin in the absence of confirmatory data from a randomized trial. SUMMARY: We have designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to address this clinical question. In the conventional arm, patients will be bridged. In the experimental arm, patients will continue on oral anticoagulation and the primary outcome is clinically significant hematoma. Our study has clinical relevance to at least 70 000 patients per year in North America.
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 | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".