MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800235600 · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0374

What Surgeons Should Know About Non–Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants

2018· review· en· W2800235600 on OpenAlexaff
Atul Verma, Andrew C.T. Ha, James T. Rutka, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDabigatranRivaroxabanApixabanIntensive care medicineEdoxabanPerioperativeIdarucizumabContext (archaeology)WarfarinSurgeryInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are increasingly prescribed for patients to treat or prevent arterial or venous thromboembolism. The following 4 NOAC agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for clinical use: dabigatran etexilate, apixaban, edoxaban tosylate, and rivaroxaban. A good understanding of these agents' pharmacologic properties is important for surgeons given their marked differences compared with warfarin sodium. This review highlights key practical issues surrounding the use of NOACs in the perioperative setting. Observations: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English-language studies from May 1, 2009, until May 1, 2017, for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, observational studies, and clinical guidelines. From a systematic review of the published literature that included 70 articles and 166 404 patients, this study identified 5 key practical issues surrounding the use of NOACs in the perioperative setting. These include patient populations for which NOAC use is indicated and contraindicated, the timing of NOAC treatment cessation before invasive interventions, management of NOAC-treated patients requiring urgent interventions, the need for "bridging," and the timing of NOAC treatment's reinitiation after invasive interventions. Important findings are as follows: NOAC agents are not recommended for patients with mechanical heart valves or advanced kidney disease (creatinine clearance, <15 mL/min); minimal to no anticoagulant effect remains when therapy with a NOAC is withheld for 48 to 72 hours before surgery in the context of normal kidney function; a reversal agent is clinically available for dabigatran, while reversal agents for apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban are under regulatory review; and laboratory testing of the anticoagulant effects of NOACs are not routinely available. There is a paucity of high-quality data on the optimal timing of NOAC cessation and resumption in the perioperative period, particularly for patients who undergo procedures with high bleeding risk. Conclusions and Relevance: The anticoagulant effect of NOAC agents is predictable but not readily measurable in routine clinical practice. A number of uncertainties remain surrounding the use of these agents in the perioperative setting. Ongoing prospective studies and randomized clinical trials will provide greater clarity on these management issues in the near future.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.013
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA SurgerySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207