Potential role of rivaroxaban in patients with acute coronary syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to be at risk for recurrent ischemic events, despite an early invasive strategy and the use of dual antiplatelet therapy. The anticoagulant pathway remains activated for a prolonged period after ACS and, consequently, has been a target for treatment. Early studies with warfarin indicated its benefit, but the risk of bleeding and the complexities of warfarin anticoagulation resulted in little use of this strategy. Rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran are new specific inhibitors of anticoagulant factors (Xa or IIa) currently available for the prevention of thrombosis and/or thromboembolism. Thus far, studies with dabigatran and apixaban in ACS have shown no clinical benefit and bleeding has been increased. The ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial observed the impact of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg and 5 mg twice daily in patients with recent ACS receiving current management (both early invasive strategy and dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel) over a follow-up period of over 1 year. Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke by 16%, and both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality by approximately 20%. Although major bleeding increased from 0.6% to 2.1% and intracranial hemorrhage from 0.2% to 0.6%, there was no increase in fatal bleeding. The role of rivaroxaban in the management of ACS is discussed in this review. The reduction in mortality is the main finding that could lead to the use of rivaroxaban in the management of ACS in high-risk individuals with a low bleeding risk.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".