The Peri‐procedural Use of Dabigatran in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolation is an effective strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The peri-procedural use of anticoagulation is routinely employed to reduce thromboembolic risk. AIMS/METHODS: The aim of this study was to compare the use of Dabigatran to the other 2 strategies involving the use of Warfarin. Single centre observational study comparing 3 anticoagulation strategies: Group 1 consisted of patients maintained on Warfarin (5.15 ± 2.52 mg) with a therapeutic INR of 2-3. Group 2 comprised patients initially treated with Warfarin (6.98 ± 3.17 mg), which was discontinued 1 week prior to LA ablation, during which time patients were bridged with a therapeutic dose of Dalteparin. Group 3 included patients anticoagulated with Dabigatran (40 patients received 150 mg BID, 3 patients received 110 mg BID), which was discontinued 24-30 h prior to the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients were included in the study. There were no significant differences in age, sex, LA volume, CHADS2 score or proportion of patients with persistent AF. There were no significant differences in the number of patients with intra-cardiac thrombus found at TOE (Group 1: 2.3% vs. Group 2: 1.5% vs. Group 3: 0%; P = 0.37). Furthermore, there were no differences in the rate of groin hematoma (2.2% vs. 1.5% vs. 2.3%; P = 0.8) or the development of pericardial effusion (5.4% vs. 8.8% vs. 2.3%; P = 0.54). No thromboembolic events were seen. CONCLUSION: Peri-procedural use of Dabigatran during AF ablation procedures is safe, with no significant difference when compared to conventional anticoagulation with either Warfarin bridged with Dalteparin or uninterrupted Warfarin.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".