Timing of resumption of antithrombotic agents following surgical evacuation of chronic subdural hematomas: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Antithrombosis (AT), with antiplatelets or anticoagulants, is a significant risk factor for the development of chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH). Resumption of AT following hematoma evacuation is variable, with scant evidence for guidance. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 479 patients with surgically-evacuated cSDH at St. Michael’s Hospital from 2007-2012. Collected variables included type of AT, indication for AT, timing and type of postoperative complications, and restart intervals for AT agents. Postoperative complications were classified as major or minor hemorrhages, or thromboembolism. Results: Among all patients, 14.8% experienced major hemorrhage, 23.0% minor hemorrhage, and 1.67% thromboembolism. Patients on any preoperative AT were at higher risk of major hemorrhage (OR=1.93, p=0.014), experienced earlier major hemorrhage (mean 16.2 versus 26.5d, p=0.052) and earlier thromboembolism (mean 2.7 versus 51.5d, p=0.036). The type of agent did not affect complication frequency or timing. Patients restarted on any AT postoperatively were at decreased risk of major rebleed following resumption, than those not restarted (OR=0.06, p<0.01). Conclusions: Patients on preoperative AT experienced thromboembolism significantly earlier, at 3d postoperatively, with no increase in rebleed risk following AT resumption. We provide cursory evidence that resuming AT early, at 3d postoperatively, may be safe. Larger prospective studies are required for definitive recommendations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".