Management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing elective surgeries and invasive procedures: Updated guidelines from the French Working Group on Perioperative Hemostasis (GIHP) – September 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2011, data on patients exposed to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) while undergoing invasive procedures have accumulated. At the same time, an increased hemorrhagic risk during perioperative bridging anticoagulation without thrombotic risk reduction has been demonstrated. This has led the GIHP to update their guidelines published in 2011. For scheduled procedures at low bleeding risk, it is suggested that patients interrupt DOAs the night before irrespective of type of drug and to resume therapy six hours or more after the end of the invasive procedure. For invasive procedures at high bleeding risk, it is suggested to interrupt rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban three days before. Dabigatran should be interrupted according to the renal function, four days and five days if creatinine clearance is higher than 50mL/min and between 30 and 50mL/min, respectively. For invasive procedures at very high bleeding risk such as intracranial neurosurgery or neuraxial anesthesia, longer interruption times are suggested. Finally, bridging with parenteral anticoagulation and measurement of DOA concentrations can no longer routinely be used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".