Short-term dabigatran interruption before cardiac rhythm device implantation: multi-centre experience from the RE-LY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery is commonly performed in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The current analysis was undertaken to compare peri-operative anticoagulation management, bleeding, and thrombotic events in AF patients treated with dabigatran vs. warfarin. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 611 patients treated with dabigatran vs. warfarin who underwent CIED surgery during the RE-LY trial. Among 201 warfarin-treated patients, warfarin was interrupted a median of 144 (inter-quartile range, IQR: 120-216) h, and 37 (18.4%) patients underwent heparin bridging. In dabigatran-treated patients (216 on 110 mg bid and 194 on 150 mg bid), the duration of dabigatran interruption was a median of 96 (IQR: 61-158) h. Pocket hematomas occurred in 9 (2.20%) patients on dabigatran and 8 (3.98%) patients on warfarin (P = 0.218). The occurrence of pocket hematomas was lower with dabigatran compared with warfarin with heparin bridging (RD: -8.62%, 95% CI: -24.15 to - 0.51%, P = 0.034) but not when compared with warfarin with no bridging (P = 0.880). Ischemic stroke occurred in 2 (0.3%) patients; one in the warfarin group (without bridging) and one in the dabigatran 150 mg bid group (P = 0.735). CONCLUSION: In patients treated with dabigatran undergoing CIED surgery, interruption of dabigatran is associated with similar or lower incidence of pocket hematoma, when compared with warfarin interruption without or with heparin bridging, respectively. Whether uninterrupted dabigatran can reduce pocket hematoma or ischemic stroke remains to be evaluated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".