Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis After Fracture-Related Orthopedic Surgery in Routine Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of venous thromboembolism is high in patients undergoing fracture-related major orthopedic surgery, but data on pharmacological thromboprophylaxis are limited. This analysis evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban after fracture-related orthopedic surgery in routine care compared with other pharmacological thromboprophylaxis (standard of care [SOC]). METHODS: The study population comprised a subset of patients with lower-limb fracture from XArelto in the prophylaxis of post-surgical venous thromboembolism after elective Major Orthopaedic Surgery of hip or knee (XAMOS; a phase IV noninterventional study) and a XAMOS extension study (XAMOS-Extra). The study participants included patients who underwent surgery for hip/femur or lower-leg fractures (below-knee lower-leg fractures, eg, the tibia or foot). All adverse events were recorded, including symptomatic thromboembolic events and bleeding events. RESULTS: Data from 790 patients were available for analysis (n = 350 for rivaroxaban and n = 440 for SOC). The incidence of symptomatic thromboembolic events 3 months postsurgery was 0.57% (2 of the 350) in the rivaroxaban group and 1.14% (5 of the 440) in the SOC group (odds ratio [OR]: 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10-2.59). Treatment-emergent major bleeding events occurred in 0.29% (1 of the 350) of patients receiving rivaroxaban and 0.45% (2 of the 440) of patients receiving SOC (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.06-6.95). There were no cases of fatal or critical bleeding in either treatment group. The incidences of wound complications and any other adverse events were numerically lower with rivaroxaban compared with SOC. CONCLUSIONS: These data from routine practice demonstrate that rivaroxaban can provide effective thromboprophylaxis after fracture-related orthopedic surgery of the lower limb with a favorable safety profile.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".