MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099068062 · doi:10.1592/phco.26.10.1479

Use of Low‐Molecular‐Weight Heparin to Bridge Therapy in Obese Patients and in Patients with Renal Dysfunction

2006· review· en· W2099068062 on OpenAlexaff
Kirsten George-Phillips, Tammy J. Bungard

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonCapital District Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingLow molecular weight heparinHeparinRenal functionCreatinineEnoxaparin sodiumDosePopulationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To recommend strategies to bridge therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in obese patients and in patients with renal dysfunction. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was performed of the literature from January 1966-November 2005. Published material dealing with bridging of anticoagulation therapy or short-term use of LMWH therapy in patients with renal dysfunction or obesity was reviewed. The manufacturers of enoxaparin, dalteparin, and tinzaparin were contacted for the references used to determine dosing recommendations. RESULTS: Although LMWH has been commonly used to bridge therapy, our search revealed no trials that specifically examined LMWH bridge therapy in obese patients or in patients with renal dysfunction. However, nine trials using LMWH in obese patients and 14 trials using LMWH in patients with renal dysfunction were identified. When compared with normal-weight individuals, obese patients receiving enoxaparin and dalteparin based on total body weight did not demonstrate higher hemorrhage rates or antifactor Xa levels. Subtherapeutic antifactor Xa levels were more common with once-daily dosing of enoxaparin than with dosing every 12 hours. Enoxaparin accumulates in patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 ml/minute or less; in this population, enoxaparin dosage adjustments have been attempted. Tinzaparin does not accumulate in patients with a creatinine clearance of 20 ml/minute or greater after at least 10 days of dosing. CONCLUSION: Obese patients, weighing 90-150 kg, receiving LMWH for bridge therapy should receive dosages based on total body weight. Unfractionated heparin is recommended in patients weighing more than 150 kg; however, if LMWH is used, antifactor Xa levels should be monitored. Bridging with enoxaparin should be limited to patients with a creatinine clearance greater than 30 ml/minute. The use of enoxaparin 1 mg/kg once/day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 ml/minute or less is not recommended for anticoagulation bridge therapy. Tinzaparin may be considered for cross-coverage of high-risk patients with recent or recurrent venous thromboembolism who have a creatinine clearance of at least 20 ml/minute.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207