Is Impaired Renal Function a Contraindication to the Use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the risk of accumulation of anticoagulant effect, it has been suggested that patients with a creatinine clearance of 30 mL/min or less (< or =0.50 mL/s) should be excluded from treatment with low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparin, or have anti-factor Xa heparin level monitoring performed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of this recommendation. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to identify prospective articles comparing differences in the pharmacokinetics of LMW heparins in nondialyzed patients with varying degrees of renal function. Reference lists of retrieved reports were checked for additional articles. RESULTS: Three single-dose pharmacokinetic trials and 2 multiple-dose deep vein thrombosis (treatment trials met our selection criteria. The 3 trials that could address our primary objective did not support the use of a 30-mL/min (0.50-mL/s) cutoff of creatinine clearance to select individuals at risk of accumulation when LMW heparin is used. Four of the 5 trials support the notion that anti-factor Xa activity of some LMW heparin preparations accumulates in patients with impaired creatinine clearance. Tinzaparin sodium, an LMW heparin with a higher-than-average molecular weight distribution, appears to be the exception, since it did not exhibit accumulation in patients with creatinine clearances as low as 20 mL/min (0.33 mL/s). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a 30-mL/min (0.50-mL/s) cutoff is not justified, on the basis of currently available evidence, to select individuals at increased risk of accumulation when LMW heparin is used. The pharmacokinetic response to impaired renal function may differ among LMW heparin preparations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".