Management of rivaroxaban- or apixaban-associated major bleeding with prothrombin complex concentrates: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and occurrence of thromboembolic events in patients treated with prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) for the management of major bleeding events (MBEs) on rivaroxaban or apixaban. We investigated the effectiveness of PCCs given for the management of MBEs in patients on rivaroxaban or apixaban. Between 1 January 2014 and 1 October 2016, we prospectively included patients on rivaroxaban or apixaban treated with PCCs for the management of MBEs. The effectiveness of PCCs was assessed by using the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis Scientific and Standardization Subcommittee criteria for the assessment of the effectiveness of major bleeding management. The safety outcomes were thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality within 30 days after treatment with PCCs. A total of 84 patients received PCCs for the reversal of rivaroxaban or apixaban due to a MBE. PCCs were given at a median (interquartile range) dose of 2000 IU (1500-2000 IU). Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was the most common site of bleeding requiring reversal (n = 59; 70.2%), followed by gastrointestinal bleeding in 13 (15.5%) patients. Management with PCCs was assessed as effective in 58 (69.1%) patients and ineffective in 26 (30.9%) patients. Most patients with ineffective hemostasis with PCCs had ICH (n = 16; 61.5%). Two patients developed an ischemic stroke, occurring 5 and 10 days after treatment with PCC. Twenty-seven (32%) patients died within 30 days after a MBE. The administration of PCCs for the management of MBEs associated with rivaroxaban or apixaban is effective in most cases and is associated with a low risk of thromboembolism. Our findings are limited by the absence of a control group in the study.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".