MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980630968 · doi:10.1161/circep.119.007545

Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulants, Warfarin, and Antiplatelet Agents on Risk of Device Pocket Hematoma

2019· article· en· W2980630968 on OpenAlexafffund
Vidal Essebag, Jeff S. Healey, Jacqueline Joza, Pablo B. Nery, Eli Kalfon, Tiago Luiz Luz Leiria, Atul Verma, Félix Ayala-Paredes, Benoit Coutu, Glen Sumner, Giuliano Becker, François Philippon, John W. Eikelboom, Roopinder K. Sandhu, John L. Sapp, Richard Leather, Derek Yung, Bernard Thibault, Christopher S. Simpson, Kamran Ahmad, Satish Toal, Marcio Sturmer, Katherine M. Kavanagh, Eugene Crystal, George A. Wells, Andrew D. Krahn, David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaMontreal Heart InstituteMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalFoothills Medical CentreHôtel-Dieu de MontréalHôpital FleurimontSaint John Regional HospitalHôtel-Dieu de QuébecSouthlake Regional Health CenterPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinAnticoagulantConcomitantOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialBruiseInternal medicinePerioperativeSurgeryEcchymosisAnesthesiaAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Oral anticoagulant use is common among patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery. BRUISE CONTROL (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT00800137) demonstrated that perioperative warfarin continuation reduced clinically significant hematomas (CSH) by 80% compared with heparin bridging (3.5% versus 16%). BRUISE-CONTROL-2 (NCT01675076) observed a similarly low risk of CSH when comparing continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulant (2.1% in both groups). Using patient level data from both trials, the current study aims to: (1) evaluate the effect of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on CSH, and (2) understand the relative risk of CSH in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. Methods: We analyzed 1343 patients included in BRUISE-CONTROL-1 and BRUISE-CONTROL-2. The primary outcome for both trials was CSH. There were 408 patients identified as having continued either a single or dual antiplatelet agent at the time of device surgery. Results: Antiplatelet use (versus nonuse) was associated with CSH in 9.8% versus 4.3% of patients ( P <0.001), and remained a strong independent predictor after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 1.965; 95% CI, 1.202–3.213; P =0.0071). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for antiplatelet use, there was no significant difference in CSH observed between direct oral anticoagulant use compared with continued warfarin (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.375–1.963; P =0.717). Conclusions: Concomitant antiplatelet therapy doubled the risk of CSH during device surgery. No difference in CSH was found between direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. In anticoagulated patients undergoing elective or semi-urgent device surgery, the patient specific benefit/risk of holding an antiplatelet should be carefully considered. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00800137, NCT01675076.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207