MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Consistent Venous Thromboembolism Risk Reduction by Extended- Versus Standard-Duration Enoxaparin Prophylaxis in Subgroups of Acutely Ill Medical Patients in the EXCLAIM Study.

2007· article· en· W2467512445 on OpenAlexaff
Victor F. Tapson, Russell D. Hull, Sebastian Schellong, Manuel Monréal, Meyer‐Michel Samama, Alexander G.G. Turpie, Roger D. Yusen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)PopulationAsymptomaticClinical endpointRelative riskSurgeryRandomized controlled trialPediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction In the EXCLAIM study, extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis reduced the relative risk of VTE in acutely ill medical patients by 44% compared with placebo, following standard-duration prophylaxis (2.8% vs 4.9%; RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.39–0.80; p=0.0011). We assessed the benefits of extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis in subgroups of acutely ill medical patients with the most prominent primary diagnoses enrolled in EXCLAIM. Methods Patients enrolled in EXCLAIM had: recent reduced mobility (≤3 days) due to a medical illness, age ≥40 years, and anticipated level 1 (total bed rest or sedentary without bathroom privileges) or level 2 (level 1 with bathroom privileges) reduced mobility with further risk factors. Eligible patients received enoxaparin 40mg SC once-daily for 10±4 days, and were then double-blind randomized and received enoxaparin 40mg SC once-daily (n=2013) or placebo (n=2027) for a further 28±4 days. Asymptomatic DVT were diagnosed by bilateral compression ultrasound after completion of the randomized treatment. Suspected cases of symptomatic DVT or PE were confirmed by objective tests. Fatal PE were confirmed by autopsy where possible. Univariate logistic regressions were conducted to estimate treatment effects in patient subgroups. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between treatments within each primary diagnosis subgroup, and the considered primary diagnoses accounted for >80% of the enrolled population. The reduced VTE incidence associated with extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis was consistent across subgroups of patients with different primary diagnoses (Table). The incidence of major bleeding was generally higher in patients receiving extended-duration prophylaxis (Table). Table: VTE and major bleeding in patient subgroups receiving extended-duration vs standard-duration prophylaxis/placebo Primary diagnosis Incidence of VTE (%)* Odds Ratio [95% CI]** Incidence of Major Bleeding (%)*** Odds Ratio [95% CI] Extended Enox Standard Enox/Placebo Extended Enox Standard Enox/Placebo *N=3347 evaluable patients; **Alpha adjustment for an interim analysis; ***N=4040 treated patients Heart failure, NYHA class III or IV 3.1 4.7 0.64 [0.29–1.39] 0.0 0.2 N/A Acute respiratory insufficiency 2.2 3.7 0.60 [0.27–1.34] 0.6 0.2 3.15 [0.33–30.4] Post ischemic stroke 2.1 8.3 0.24 [0.06–0.91] 0.6 0.0 N/A Acute infection without septic shock 3.6 5.3 0.66 [0.36–1.22] 0.8 0.2 5.16 [0.60–44.3] Conclusion Extended enoxaparin prophylaxis consistently reduced VTE risk in acutely ill medical patients with the most prominent primary diagnoses compared with placebo following standard-duration prophylaxis. Major bleeding was generally higher in the extended-duration enoxaparin arm, but rates of bleeding were low. These findings are consistent with the primary findings of the EXCLAIM study which demonstrated the clinical benefit of the extended-duration enoxaparin regimen.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→