Double Blind Randomized Control Trial of Postoperative Low Molecular Weight Heparin Bridging Therapy for Patients Who Are at High Risk for Arterial Thromboembolism (PERIOP 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background It remains uncertain if patients with atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valves requiring interruption of warfarin for procedures benefit from post-procedure anticoagulant bridging therapy. Methods In order to determine the efficacy and safety of postoperative LMWH bridging, we conducted a multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial of patients with atrial fibrillation or a mechanical heart valve who require interruption of warfarin for a planned procedure. We excluded patients with active bleeding within 30 days, platelet count <100 x10⁹/L, spinal, cardiac or neurosurgery, life expectancy <3months, creatinine clearance <30ml/min, multiple mechanical valves or a Starr-Edwards valve, mechanical valve with history of stroke or TIA, or a history of heparin induced thrombocytopenia. The last dose of warfarin was given 6 days prior to the procedure. All patients received pre-procedure bridging therapy with dalteparin 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously in the morning day-3 and day-2 then dalteparin 100 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU) subcutaneously 24 hours pre-procedure. Warfarin was resumed in the evening of the procedure at twice the usual dose for the first two days and then titrated according to INR. After the procedure (same day or next day), when hemostasis had been achieved, patients were randomized to receive dalteparin or placebo for at least 4 days and until the INR was greater than 1.9. Randomization was stratified by presence of a mechanical valve, by the post-procedure risk for major bleeding, and by centre. For patients at high risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a fixed daily dose of 5000 IU. For patients at low risk for post-procedure major bleeding, dalteparin or placebo was administered at a daily dose of 200 IU per kilogram (max 18,000 IU). The primary analysis was a comparison of the proportion of patients who had major thromboembolism (stroke, proximal DVT, PE, MI, peripheral embolism) over 90 days by Chi-squared test according to the intention to treat principle. Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, all cause mortality and a composite outcome of major thromboembolism and major bleeding. Results Starting in October 2006 we randomized a total of 1471 patients of whom 1167 had atrial fibrillation (without mechanical heart valves) and 304 had mechanical valves (99 also had atrial fibrillation). Last follow up was completed in May 2016. Baseline characteristics were similar between the LMWH and the placebo groups (see Table 1). Due to a randomization program system error at two centres more atrial fibrillation patients were randomized to dalteparin rather than to placebo. Major thromboembolism occurred in 6/820 (0.71%) dalteparin patients and 7/650 (1.11%) placebo patients. Major post-procedure bleeding occurred in 12 (1.46%) dalteparin patients and 16 (2.46%) placebo patients. Findings were similar in patients with atrial fibrillation alone and in patients with mechanical heart valves (with or without atrial fibrillation) (Table 2). Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation and/or mechanical heart valves who had warfarin interrupted for a procedure there was no benefit from post-procedure LMWH bridging. Disclosures Kovacs: Bayer: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development: Research Funding. Wells:Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria. Schulman:Boehringer-Ingelheim: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".