Vitamin K for reversal of excessive vitamin K antagonist anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with an international normalized ratio (INR) between 4.5 and 10 are at increased risk of bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administering vitamin K in patients receiving VKA therapy with INR between 4.5 and 10 and without bleeding. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials in April 2018. Search strategy included terms vitamin K administration and VKA-related terms. Reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed, and experts in the field were contacted for relevant papers. Two investigators independently screened and collected data. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Six studies (1074 participants) were included in the review and meta-analyses. Pooled estimates indicate a nonsignificant increased risk of mortality (RR = 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-2.47), bleeding (RR = 2.24; 95% CI, 0.81-7.27), and thromboembolism (RR = 1.29; 95% CI, 0.35-4.78) for vitamin K administration, with moderate certainty of the evidence resulting from serious imprecision as CIs included potential for benefit and harm. Patients receiving vitamin K had a nonsignificant increase in the likelihood of reaching goal INR (1.95; 95% CI, 0.88-4.33), with very low certainty of the evidence resulting from serious risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Our findings indicate that patients on VKA therapy who have an INR between 4.5 and 10.0 without bleeding are not likely to benefit from vitamin K administration in addition to temporary VKA cessation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".