Clinical Outcomes with Unfractionated Heparin or Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin as Bridging Therapy in Patients on Long-Term Oral Anticoagulants: Results from the REGIMEN Registry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The optimal perioperative management of patients on long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is currently unclear. There have been no large prospective clinical studies comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as bridge therapy in this setting. This registry compared the efficacy and safety of in-hospital UFH with mostly outpatient-based LMWH for perioperative bridging in patients on long-term OAC. Methods: REGIMEN is a large, prospective, multi-center registry in the USA and Canada of patients receiving chronic anticoagulation and requiring a perioperative bridge for an elective procedure or surgery. Patients who were ≥18 years, on OAC ≥3 months prior to the elective procedure, and who had heparin as a bridge to OAC for ≥2 days in the pre- and/or post-operative period, were included in the registry. Data on patient characteristics and primary clinical adverse events up to 30 days post-procedure were collected and compared between UFH and LMWH. Results: Of 1077 patients enrolled in this registry, 180 received UFH alone and 721 received LMWH (treatment or prophylactic dose) alone. Patients not receiving the same heparin pre- and post-procedure (n=123) and those undergoing multiple procedures (n=53) were excluded from the analysis. Patients on LMWH spent less time in hospital and were less likely to undergo major surgery or receive general anesthesia. Adverse events occurred at similar rates in both groups (table 1), and were primarily minor bleeds. Univariate analysis for procedure variables showed that UFH versus LMWH, intra-procedural anticoagulants/thrombolytics, procedure duration ≥45 minutes and general anesthesia were associated with an increased risk of a major adverse event. Logistic regression analysis for major bleeding can be seen in table 2. Conclusions: REGIMEN, a large, prospective, multi-center registry of patients in the US and Canada requiring bridging therapy with heparin for elective surgery, reveals that bridging therapy with LMWH in selected outpatients is at least as safe and effective as in-hospital UFH. Table 1. Adverse events in bridged patients UFH (n=164) LMWH (n=668) p-value Adverse event 28 (17.1%) 108 (16.2%) 0.81 Arterial/venous complication, major bleed, or death 13 (7.9%) 28 (4.2%) 0.07 Adverse Events: Arterial complications: Cardiac valvular or mural thrombus 1 (0.6%) 0 (0%) Intracranial event 1 (0.6%) 2 (0.3%) TIA 1 (0.6%) 2 (0.3%) Peripheral arterial event 1 (0.6%) 0 (0%) Venous complications: DVT 0 (0%) 2 (0.3%) PE 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Major bleed 9 (5.5%) 22 (3.3%) 0.25 Minor bleed 15 (9.1%) 80 (12.0%) 0.34 Thrombocytopenia 2 (1.2%) 3 (0.4%) Death 2 (1.2%) 4 (0.6%) Table 2. Logistic regression analysis for major bleed Independent variable Reference OR 95% CI Vascular surgery Not vascular surgery 4.72 0.92–24.09 General surgery Not general surgery 2.25 0.78–6.53 Charlson score >1 Charlson score ≤1 2.24 1.02–4.93 Procedure duration ≥45mins Procedure duration <45mins 1.37 0.59–3.18 LMWH post-op UFH post-op 0.76 0.32–1.81
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".