MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized, Blinded Trial Comparing Fondaparinux With Unfractionated Heparin in Patients Undergoing Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2005· article· en· W2143275024 on OpenAlexafffund
Shamir R. Mehta, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Christopher B. Granger, Jean‐Pierre Bassand, David P. Faxon, Jeffrey I. Weitz, Rizwan Afzal, Bonnie R. Rush, Ron Peters, Madhu K. Natarajan, James L. Velianou, David Goodhart, Marino Labinaz, Jean‐François Tanguay, Keith A.A. Fox, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Heart InstitutePopulation Health Research InstituteFoothills Medical CentreMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFondaparinuxMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIHeparinBivalirudinAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineSurgeryCardiologyThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Factor Xa plays a central role in the generation of thrombin, making it a novel target for treatment of arterial thrombosis. Fondaparinux is a synthetic factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to be superior to standard therapies for the prevention of venous thrombosis. We performed a randomized trial to determine the safety and feasibility of fondaparinux in the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 350 patients undergoing elective or urgent PCI were randomized in a blinded manner to receive unfractionated heparin (UFH), 2.5 mg fondaparinux IV, or 5.0 mg fondaparinux IV. Randomization was stratified for planned or no planned use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonists. The primary safety outcome was total bleeding, which was a combination of major and minor bleeding events. The incidence of total bleeding was 7.7% in the UFH group and 6.4% in the combined fondaparinux groups (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 1.84; P=0.61). Bleeding was less common in the 2.5-mg fondaparinux group compared with the 5-mg fondaparinux group (3.4% versus 9.6%, P=0.06). The composite efficacy outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or need for a bailout GPIIb/IIIa antagonist was 6.0% in the UFH group and 6.0% in the fondaparinux group, with no significant difference in efficacy among the fondaparinux doses compared with UFH. Coagulation marker analysis at 6 and 12 hours after PCI demonstrated that fondaparinux was superior to UFH in inducing a sustained reduction in markers of thrombin generation, as measured by prothrombin fragment F1.2 (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study of patients undergoing contemporary PCI, factor Xa inhibition with the synthetic anticoagulant fondaparinux in doses of 2.5 and 5.0 mg was comparable to UFH for clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. These data form the basis for further evaluation of fondaparinux in arterial thrombosis.

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)0.006
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations118
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207