MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2508625171 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.279.279

Fondaparinux Combined with Intermittent Pneumatic Compression (IPC) Versus IPC Alone in the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Major Abdominal Surgery: The Randomized APOLLO Study.

2005· article· en· W2508625171 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander G.G. Turpie, Kenneth A. Bauer, Joseph A. Caprini, Philip P. Comp, Michael Gent, James E. Muntz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFondaparinuxIntermittent pneumatic compressionPulmonary embolismSurgeryDeep veinRandomized controlled trialAbdominal surgeryVenographyAnesthesiaPlaceboThrombosisVenous thromboembolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The selective factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux has been shown to be at least as effective and as safe as the low-molecular-weight heparin dalteparin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after major abdominal surgery (Agnelli GA, et al. Br J Surg, 2005, In press). The benefit of fondaparinux in addition to intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in VTE prevention after abdominal surgery has not been evaluated. Objective: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in conjunction with IPC versus IPC alone in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Methods: Patients aged at least 40 years undergoing abdominal surgery of at least 45 minutes were included. Patients at highest risk of VTE, requiring pharmacologic prophylaxis in addition to IPC were excluded at the investigator’s discretion. Patients were randomized to receive either fondaparinux 2.5 mg or placebo once daily subcutaneously for 5 to 9 days, starting 6 to 8 hours postoperatively. All patients received IPC. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis detected by mandatory bilateral venography, or documented symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism up to day 10. The main safety outcome was major bleeding during the treatment period. A blinded independent committee adjudicated all these outcomes. Follow-up lasted 32 days. Results: Of the 1309 patients randomized between November 2001 and October 2004 (fondaparinux+IPC, n=650; placebo+IPC, n=659), 842 (64.3%) were evaluable for efficacy. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to VTE risk factors, demographic and surgical characteristics; 82% had at least one VTE risk factor (over and above being at least 40 years old and undergoing abdominal surgery). Fondaparinux significantly reduced the VTE rate from 5.3% (22/418) with placebo to 1.7% (7/424), an odds ratio reduction of 69.8% (95% CI: 27.9 to 87.3; p=0.004). Similarly, fondaparinux significantly reduced the proximal deep-vein thrombosis rate from 1.7% (7/417) to 0.2% (1/423; p=0.037). Major bleeding occurred in 1.6% (10/635) and 0.2% (1/650) of fondaparinux- and placebo-treated patients, respectively (p=0.006). None of the bleeding events were fatal or involved a critical organ. Conclusions: Fondaparinux combined with IPC was significantly more effective than IPC alone for VTE prevention after major abdominal surgery. Although the bleeding risk was increased with fondaparinux compared with placebo, this risk was low and consistent with that observed in previous fondaparinux studies in surgical patients.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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