Anti-Xa Levels in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Dalteparin for Thromboprophylaxis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale: Despite the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LWMH) compared to unfractionated (UFH) in many patients, LMWH may bioaccumulate in patients with renal insufficiency which could cause an increased risk of bleeding. If LMWH thromboprophylaxis is safe in ICU patients with renal insufficiency, this could reduce the risk of DVT and HIT. Since the extent to which LMWH bioaccumulates in critically ill patients in prophylactic rather than therapeutic doses is unclear, our objective was to measure peak and trough anti-Xa levels during a multicenter randomized pilot trial of LMWH vs UFH for thromboprophylaxis in the medical-surgical ICU setting. Methods: We included 128 patients ≥18 years with an expected ICU stay ≥72h. We excluded patients with trauma, orthopedic, cardiac, or neurosurgery, severe hypertension, DVT, PE or hemorrhage within 3 mos, INR >2ULN, PTT >2ULN, platelets <100 x109/L, and if creatinine clearance was <30 ml/min on ICU admission. Trough anti-Xa levels were drawn when patients developed creatinine clearance <30ml/min, trough and peak anti-Xa levels were drawn on Tuesdays and Thursdays regardless of serum creatinine, and random anti-Xa levels were drawn if patients had a bleeding event. Results: No differences were found in the 2 groups (median anti-Xa levels) as shown below. Conclusions: We did not observe LWMH or UFH bioaccumulation when administered in prophylactic doses in these critically ill patients with a range of renal dysfunction. Anti-Xa Levels Allocation Cr Cl <30 (trough) Tues & Thurs (trough) Tues & Thurs (peak) Bleeding (random) Group A 8 tests in 2 pts 17 tests in 9 pts 17 tests in 9 pts 7 tests in 4 pts Group A 0.1 IU/mL 0.09 IU/mL 0.11 IU/mL 0.1 IU/mL Group B 23 tests in 5 pts 46 tests in 12 pts 46 tests in 12 pts 10 tests in 8 pts Group B 0.1 IU/mL 0.09 IU/mL 0.11 IU/mL 0.1 IU/mL
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".