MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-Analysis: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Bleeding in Patients with Severe Renal Insufficiency

2006· review· en· W2062522570 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy Lim, Francesco Dentali, John W. Eikelboom, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCreatinineRenal functionLow molecular weight heparinHeparinDialysisUrologyCochrane LibraryOdds ratioInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dose adjustment or laboratory monitoring of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is commonly recommended for patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < or =30 mL/min), but the basis for this recommendation is unclear. PURPOSE: To compare levels of anti-Xa heparin and risk for major bleeding in LMWH-treated patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less versus those with a creatinine clearance greater than 30 mL/min by using standard weight-adjusted therapeutic doses, empirically adjusted doses, or prophylactic doses of LMWH. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) searched to December 2005 with no language restrictions. The authors also searched reference lists and contacted experts. STUDY SELECTION: Observational or subgroups of randomized studies that included non-dialysis-dependent patients with varying degrees of renal function who were treated with LMWH and reported creatinine clearance and anti-Xa levels or major bleeding. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on patient characteristics, renal function, LMWH treatment, anti-Xa levels, and major bleeding. The pooled odds ratio of major bleeding in patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less was calculated by using the Peto method. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies using 3 preparations of LMWH (15 studies using enoxaparin, 2 using tinzaparin, and 1 using dalteparin) were included. Peak anti-Xa levels measured 4 hours after a subcutaneous injection were statistically significantly higher in patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less compared with those with a creatinine clearance greater than 30 mL/min in studies that used a standard therapeutic dose of enoxaparin (4 studies) but not in studies of empirically dose-adjusted enoxaparin (3 studies). Data were insufficient to assess the relationship between anti-Xa and renal function for prophylactic doses of enoxaparin and therapeutic doses of tinzaparin or dalteparin. In 12 studies involving 4971 patients, LMWH was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk for major bleeding in patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less compared with those with a creatinine clearance greater than 30 mL/min (5.0% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.19 to 4.27]; P = 0.013). When analyzed according to LMWH preparation, major bleeding was increased when a standard therapeutic dose of enoxaparin was used (8.3% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 3.88 [CI, 1.78 to 8.45]) but may not be increased when an empirically adjusted dose of enoxaparin is used (0.9% vs. 1.9%; odds ratio, 0.58 [CI, 0.09 to 3.78]; P = 0.23 for heterogeneity). There were insufficient studies to assess the risk for major bleeding with tinzaparin, dalteparin, and prophylactic doses of enoxaparin. LIMITATIONS: The data for tinzaparin and dalteparin were limited. Data are observational, and the potential for confounding cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Non-dialysis-dependent patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less who are treated with standard therapeutic doses of enoxaparin have elevated levels of anti-Xa and an increased risk for major bleeding. Empirical dose adjustment of enoxaparin may reduce the risk for bleeding and merits additional evaluation. No conclusions can be made regarding other LMWHs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.037
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations439
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207