Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial compared dabigatran 110 mg BID (D110) and 150 mg BID (D150) with warfarin for stroke prevention in 18 113 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardioversion on randomized treatment was permitted. Precardioversion transesophageal echocardiography was encouraged, particularly in dabigatran-assigned patients. Data from before, during, and 30 days after cardioversion were analyzed. A total of 1983 cardioversions were performed in 1270 patients: 647, 672, and 664 in the D110, D150, and warfarin groups, respectively. For D110, D150, and warfarin, transesophageal echocardiography was performed before 25.5%, 24.1%, and 13.3% of cardioversions, of which 1.8%, 1.2%, and 1.1% were positive for left atrial thrombi. Continuous treatment with study drug for ≥3 weeks before cardioversion was lower in D110 (76.4%) and D150 (79.2%) compared with warfarin (85.5%; P<0.01 for both). Stroke and systemic embolism rates at 30 days were 0.8%, 0.3%, and 0.6% (D110 versus warfarin, P=0.71; D150 versus warfarin, P=0.40) and similar in patients with and without transesophageal echocardiography. Major bleeding rates were 1.7%, 0.6%, and 0.6% (D110 versus warfarin, P=0.06; D150 versus warfarin, P=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest cardioversion experience to date and the first to evaluate a novel anticoagulant in this setting. The frequencies of stroke and major bleeding within 30 days of cardioversion on the 2 doses of dabigatran were low and comparable to those on warfarin with or without transesophageal echocardiography guidance. Dabigatran is a reasonable alternative to warfarin in patients requiring cardioversion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".