MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141192690 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa052711

Enoxaparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2006· article· en· W2141192690 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Montalescot, Harvey D. White, Richard L. Gallo, Marc Cohen, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Philip E. Aylward, Christoph Bode, Massimo Chiariello, Spencer B. King, Robert A. Harrington, Walter Desmet, Carlos Macaya, Steven R. Steinhubl

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparinPercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIEnoxaparin sodiumActivated clotting timeAnticoagulantAnesthesiaSurgeryBivalirudinLow molecular weight heparinInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite its limitations, unfractionated heparin has been the standard anticoagulant used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several small studies have suggested that intravenous enoxaparin may be a safe and effective alternative. Our primary aim was to assess the safety of enoxaparin as compared with that of unfractionated heparin in elective PCI. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned 3528 patients with PCI to receive enoxaparin (0.5 or 0.75 mg per kilogram of body weight) or unfractionated heparin adjusted for activated clotting time, stratified according to the use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The primary end point was the incidence of major or minor bleeding that was not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting. The main secondary end point was the percentage of patients in whom the target anticoagulation levels were reached. RESULTS: Enoxaparin at a dose of 0.5 mg per kilogram was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of non-CABG-related bleeding in the first 48 hours, as compared with unfractionated heparin (5.9% vs. 8.5%; absolute difference, -2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to -0.6; P=0.01), but the higher enoxaparin dose was not (6.5% vs. 8.5%; absolute difference, -2.0; 95% CI, -4.0 to 0.0; P=0.051). The incidence of major bleeding was significantly reduced in both enoxaparin groups, as compared with the unfractionated heparin group. Target anticoagulation levels were reached in significantly more patients who received enoxaparin (0.5-mg-per-kilogram dose, 79%; 0.75-mg-per-kilogram dose, 92%) than who received unfractionated heparin (20%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In elective PCI, a single intravenous bolus of 0.5 mg of enoxaparin per kilogram is associated with reduced rates of bleeding, and a dose of 0.75 mg per kilogram yields rates similar to those for unfractionated heparin, with more predictable anticoagulation levels. The trial was not large enough to provide a definitive comparison of efficacy in the prevention of ischemic events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00077844 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations358
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207