Meta-Analysis: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Bleeding in Patients with Severe Renal Insufficiency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it