MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2587489031 · doi:10.1182/blood.v108.11.713.713

Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Acute Ischemic Stroke with Enoxaparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin and the Impact of Stroke Severity.

2006· article· en· W2587489031 on OpenAlexaff
David G. Sherman, Gregory W. Albers, Christopher Bladin, Min Chen, Cesare Fieschi, Alberto Alain Gabbai, Carlos S. Kase, William O’Riordan, Graham F. Pineo

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenographyPulmonary embolismStroke (engine)Deep veinHeparinClinical endpointInternal medicineAsymptomaticThrombosisLow molecular weight heparinPopulationVenous thrombosisSurgeryRandomized controlled trialCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) is recommended in acute ischemic stroke patients, but most studies comparing LMWH and UFH are limited in methodology or sample size. The PREVAIL study was designed to assess the superiority of enoxaparin over UFH for VTE prophylaxis in acute ischemic stroke patients and to evaluate efficacy and safety according to stroke severity. Methods: Patients with acute ischemic stroke, confirmed by CT scan, and unable to walk unassisted due to motor impairment of the leg were enrolled in this prospective, open-label, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients from 15 countries were randomized within 48 h of stroke symptoms to receive enoxaparin 40 mg SC qd or UFH 5000 IU SC q12h for 10±4 days. Patients were stratified by NIH Stroke Scale score (NIHSS; severe ≥14, less severe <14). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of symptomatic or asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE), or fatal PE during treatment. DVT was confirmed primarily by venography, or ultrasonography when venography was not practical. PE was confirmed by VQ or CT scan, or angiography. Primary safety endpoints included clinically significant intracranial and major extracranial bleeding. Results: 1762 acute ischemic stroke patients were randomized. Characteristics were similar between groups; mean age was 66.0±12.9 yrs, mean NIHSS score was 11.3. In the efficacy population, enoxaparin (n=666) and UFH (n=669) were given for a mean of 10.5±3.2 days. Enoxaparin resulted in a 43% relative reduction in the risk of the primary efficacy endpoint compared with UFH (10.2% vs 18.1%; RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.44–0.76; p=0.0001, adjusted for NIHSS score). Incidences of VTE events are shown in Table 1. Reductions in the primary endpoint remained significant in patients with a NIHSS score ≥14 (16.3% vs 29.7%, p=0.0036) and <14 (8.3% vs 14.0%, p=0.0043). The composite of clinically significant intracranial and major extracranial bleeding was low and not significantly different between groups (Table 1). Conclusion: Enoxaparin 40 mg qd is superior to UFH q12h for reducing the risk of VTE in acute ischemic stroke patients, with no significant difference in clinically relevant bleeding. The reduction in VTE risk was consistent in patients with a NIHSS score ≥14 or <14. Table 1: Incidence of VTE and bleeding Endpoint Enoxaparin n/N (%, 95% CI) UFH n/N (%, 95% CI) *P<0.001 Symptomatic VTE 2/666 (0.3, 0.0–0.7) 6/669 (0.9, 0.2–1.6) Proximal DVT 30/666 (4.5, 2.9–6.1) 64/669 (9.6, 7.3–11.8)* Distal DVT 44/666 (6.6, 4.7–8.5) 85/669 (12.7, 10.2–15.2)* PE 1/666 (0.2, 0.0–0.4) 6/669 (0.9, 0.2–1.6) Composite of major extracranial and clinically significant intracranial bleeding 11/877 (1.3, 0.5–1.9) 6/872 (0.7, 0.1–1.2)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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