MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2548134605 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.433.433

Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Stroke Patients Receiving Extended-Duration Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: Sub-Analysis of the EXCLAIM Study

2008· article· en· W2548134605 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander GG Turpie, Russell D. Hull, Sebastian Schellong, Victor F. Tapson, Manuel Monréal, M Samama, Roger D. Yusen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismStroke (engine)PlaceboAsymptomaticInternal medicineDeep veinPopulationClinical endpointSurgeryRegimenThrombosisRandomized controlled trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication after acute ischemic stroke. Short-term (10 ± 4 days) prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE in ischemic stroke patients (Lancet2007; 369:1347–1355), but the efficacy and safety of extended VTE prophylaxis in patients with stroke remains unknown. The EXCLAIM study demonstrated that extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis (28 ±4 days) reduced the risk for VTE compared with placebo (2.5% vs 4.0%, respectively: absolute difference − 1.5%, 95.8% confidence interval −2.5 to −0.5%; p= 0.002), in acutely ill medical patients with recent reduced mobility who had already received a short-term 10 ± 4 days prophylaxis regimen (J Thromb Haemost2007;5:Supp.1:O-S-001). In this analysis of the EXCLAIM study, we evaluated the benefit-to-risk ratio of extended-duration enoxaparin in a population of ischemic stroke patients at high risk for VTE. Methods: Acutely ill medical patients enrolled in EXCLAIM were aged ≥40 years and had recently reduced mobility (≤3 days). Of the 7500 patients enrolled, 7415 received enoxaparin 40mg subcutaneous (SC) once-daily for 10 ± 4 days. Of these, 6085 patients were randomized to receive double-blind therapy (enoxaparin 40mg SC once-daily or placebo) for a further 28 ± 4 days. The primary efficacy endpoint, VTE, defined as the composite of symptomatic or asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), or fatal PE, was assessed at completion of the randomized treatment. The primary safety endpoint, major bleeding, was assessed through 48 hours after the last dose of randomized treatment. Secondary endpoints included symptomatic VTE and major and total (major plus minor) bleeding. Results: Of the 5,963 randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment, 389 (6.5%) had acute ischemic stroke. Of these, 198 received extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis and 191 received placebo. Key demographic variables were comparable in both groups. The VTE rate in the placebo group was higher in ischemic stroke patients, compared with those without (8.0% vs 3.7%). The incidence of VTE was significantly reduced in patients receiving extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis vs placebo (p<0.05). Major bleeding was increased in patients receiving extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis vs patients receiving placebo, however this difference was not statistically significant (Table). Conclusion: Our findings support that acute ischemic stroke patients are at increased risk for VTE, compared with the general medical population. Acutely ill patients with ischemic stroke receiving extended-duration enoxaparin experienced a significantly reduced risk of VTE and a non-statistically significant increase in major bleeding compared with patients receiving placebo, after all patients completed a short-term 10 ± 4 days enoxaparin regimen. These findings warrant further studies of extended-duration VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Table. Efficacy and safety outcomes in stroke patients receiving extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis vs placebo. Stroke patients, n=389 Parameter Extended-duration enoxaparin, n (%) Placebo, n (%) Relative risk (95.8% CI) P-value †Efficacy endpoints were assessed in all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had an evaluable ultrasound. ‡Safety endpoints were assessed in all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Efficacy † N=166 N=150 VTE 4 (2.4) 12 (8.0) 0.30 (0.10–0.91) 0.0236 Symptomatic VTE 0 (0.0) 2 (1.3) 0.1356 Safety ‡ N=198 N=191 Major bleeding 3 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 0.0881 Major and minor bleeding 12 (6.1) 5 (2.6) 2.32 (0.83–6.45) 0.0972

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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