Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants: a practical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have at least noninferior efficacy compared with other oral anticoagulants and have ancillary benefits, including overall better safety profiles, lack of the need for routine monitoring, rapid onset of action, and ease of administration. Reversal of these agents may be indicated in certain situations such as severe bleeding and for perioperative management. DOAC-associated bleeding should be risk stratified: patients with moderate or severe bleeding should have the DOAC discontinued and reversal strategies should be considered. Laboratory testing has limited utility in the acute management of bleeding; thrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time may be useful for excluding clinically relevant levels of dabigatran. Prothrombin time is potentially useful for rivaroxaban and edoxaban, but calibrated anti-Xa assays are optimal for determining clinically relevant levels of factor Xa inhibitors. Because specific reversal agents are not widely available, supportive care and interventions for local hemostasis remain the cornerstones of therapy in the patient with DOAC-associated bleeding. Nonspecific reversal agents should be considered only in the event of severe bleeding because their efficacy is unknown, and they are associated with risk of thrombosis. Recent results from phase 3/4 studies demonstrate efficacy for an antidote to dabigatran (idarucizumab, a monoclonal antibody fragment with specificity for dabigatran) and an antidote to factor Xa inhibitors (andexanet alfa, a recombinant and inactive form of factor Xa that binds inhibitors). A universal reversal agent (ciraparantag) for many anticoagulants, including the DOACs, shows promise in results from phase 1 and 2 studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.013 |
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".