MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981294154 · doi:10.1182/blood.v118.21.712.712

Relationship Between Subtherapeutic Warfarin Anticoagulation and the Development of Post Thrombotic Syndrome After a First Unprovoked Deep Vein Thrombosis: Results From the REVERSE Cohort Study

2011· article· en· W2981294154 on OpenAlexaff
Rufaro S Chitsike, Susan R. Kahn, Michael J. Kovacs, Marisol T. Betancourt, Philip S. Wells, David R. Anderson, Isabelle Chagnon, Grégoire Le Gal, Susan Solymoss, Mark Crowther, Arnaud Perrier, Richard H. White, Linda M. Vickars, Tim Ramsay, Marc Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health CareVictoria HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalOttawa HospitalSt. Joseph's HospitalCapital District Health AuthorityJewish General HospitalMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-thrombotic syndromeWarfarinThrombosisInternal medicineDeep veinProspective cohort studyCohortPopulationVenous thrombosisCohort studySurgeryPediatricsAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 712 Background & Objective: Risk factors for the post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) remain poorly understood. In a prospective multinational multicenter cohort study of patients with a first episode of unprovoked deep venous thrombosis (DVT), we sought to evaluate whether subtherapeutic anticoagulation was associated with the development of PTS. Methods: The study population was derived from the REVERSE study, a prospective cohort study done to develop a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) at low risk of recurrent VTE. Patients with a first unprovoked VTE (index event) were treated with standard anticoagulant therapy with a target INR of 2–3 for a period of 5–7 months. Patients were then enrolled in the REVERSE study, anticoagulation was stopped, and patients were monitored for VTE recurrence. For the present study, patients with DVT as their index VTE event were assessed for PTS at enrollment into the REVERSE study, using the validated Villalta scale. PTS was defined by a score of > 4. Mild PTS was defined by a score of 5–9, moderate PTS by a score of 10–14 and severe PTS was defined by a score of ≥15 or presence of an ipsilateral leg ulcer. Using international normalized ratio (INR) data from the full period of warfarin anticoagulation, time in therapeutic range (TTR) was calculated by the Rosendaal method of linear interpolation. TTR data were analyzed to evaluate whether there was an association between sub-therapeutic INR values during various time windows since the index DVT and development of PTS. Based on published trials of warfarin anticoagulation for VTE, INR <2 for more than 20% of the time was considered to represent subtherapeutic anticoagulation. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the odds ratio (OR) for development of PTS if anticoagulation was considered subtherapeutic. Multivariate analysis was then performed to adjust for known confounding variables. Results: 646 patients were enrolled into the REVERSE study, of whom 410 had DVT as their index event. Of these, 61 were excluded for insufficient INR or PTS data. Hence, the study population comprised 349 patients. The average age was 54.2 years, and 55.6% of the patients were male. Patients were on oral anticoagulation for a mean (SD) of 199 (17) days. Ninety-seven patients (27.8%) developed PTS; of these, 77 (74.7%) had mild PTS, 16 (15.5%) had moderate PTS and 4 (3.9%) had severe PTS. For the study population, the overall mean (SD) TTR during oral anticoagulation was 64.3% (19.4%) and the overall mean (SD) percentage time spent with an INR under 2 was 23.7% (18.7%). For the time window ‘first 3 months of anticoagulation', patients who developed PTS had an INR of <2 for 30% of the time vs. 24% of the time in patients without PTS (p=0.023). For the time window ‘full period of anticoagulation', patients who developed PTS had INR <2 for 27% of the time vs. 23% of the time in patients without PTS (p=0.08). Using our predefined cut-off for subtherapeutic anticoagulation (i.e. INR <2 for more than 20% of the time), patients with PTS were more likely to have received subtherapeutic anticoagulation than those without PTS during the first 3 months of anticoagulation (62.9% vs. 48.8%; p=0.02) and during the full period of anticoagulation (62.9% vs. 48.0%; p=0.01). The incidence of PTS in patients with an INR below 2 for >20% of the full time period was 33.5% compared to 21.6% in those with an INR below 2 for ≥20% of the time (p=0.02). In univariate analysis, the OR for development of PTS if the INR was <2 for more than 20% of the time during the first 3 months of anticoagulation was 1.78 (95% CI 1.10–2.87). In multivariate analysis adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, concurrent PE, previous secondary VTE and use of graduated compression stockings, the association between subtherapeutic anticoagulation and PTS remained robust (1.84 95% CI 1.13–3.01). Corresponding ORs for the full period of anticoagulation were 1.83 (95% CI 1.14–3.00) [crude] and 1.88 (95% CI 1.15–3.07) [adjusted]. Conclusion: Subtherapeutic warfarin anticoagulation after a first unprovoked DVT may be a risk factor for the development of PTS. Careful attention to INR control may have value in preventing PTS. Further study of the risk of PTS associated with oral or parenteral anticoagulants that offer more predictable anticoagulation than warfarin may be of value. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→