MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Confirmation of the Safety and Efficacy of the Kovacs 10 mg Warfarin Initiation Nomogram for Venous Thromboembolism and Derivation of a Rule To Predict the Weekly Maintenance Dose.

2007· article· en· W2992816860 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Monkman, Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, Michael J. Kovacs

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramMedicineWarfarinSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyVenous thrombosisMajor bleedingAnticoagulantThrombosisInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Initiation of oral anticoagulant therapy for acute venous thromboembolism requires balancing the need for rapid anticoagulation with the risk of major bleeding. The optimal means of initiating warfarin therapy in the outpatient setting remains controversial. We have previously demonstrated the efficacy of a 10 mg initiation nomogram in comparison to a 5 mg nomogram in a published RCT (Kovacs et al. 2003). Although this nomogram is used in many centres, some are still reluctant to use it due to a fear of potential increased bleeding. Objective: To validate the safety and efficacy of the Kovacs 10 mg warfarin initiation nomogram and to identify patient-specific factors predictive of a maintenance warfarin dose. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 430 consecutive patients who were treated prospectively according to the Kovacs nomogram in the outpatient thromboembolism clinic of a tertiary care hospital. Data were analyzed for 90 days following the initiation of anticoagulation. All patients were treated with standard subcutaneous LMWH for 5 to 7 days and warfarin for a minimum of 3 months. Major bleeding and recurrent venous thromboembolism were defined according to standard criteria. Results: 408 of 430 patients were followed for at least 90 days. Six patients (1.5%) experienced recurrent thrombosis, 3 (1%) suffered a major bleeding event, and 3 (1%) suffered a minor bleeding event requiring treatment with vitamin K. There were no deaths related to thrombosis or bleeding. Three patients died from unrelated causes. Ninety percent of the 297 patients who adhered to the nomogram achieved a therapeutic INR by day 5. Only 8 (2.7%) of patients who adhered to the nomogram had an INR measurement of ≥ 5.0 in the first 8 days of therapy. None of these suffered a major or minor bleed. The most common reason for non-adherence to the nomogram was failure to get an INR test on the days specified, due to the unavailability of testing on weekends and holidays or to patient non-compliance. On univariate analysis, six factors were found to be significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the weekly maintenance warfarin dose: Day 3 INR, weight, age, creatinine, gender, and presence of malignancy. The day 3 INR was inversely related to the maintenance dose and was the most predictive factor (R2 = 0.397). Multivariate regression was performed using the above six variables. Gender and presence of malignancy were removed from the model because they did not meet the criteria for significance (p < 0.10). Regression using the remaining variables generated the following model: Weekly maintenance dose = 63.835/(Day 3 INR) − 0.265(Age) + 0.115(Weight) − 0.061(Creatinine) + 8.126. R2 = 0.515. Conclusions: The Kovacs 10 mg nomogram results in the rapid achievement of a therapeutic INR without a high incidence of bleeding events. The day 3 INR is strongly predictive of the required maintenance dose. If prospectively validated, our maintenance dose model would provide a simple means of estimating the appropriate maintenance dose using readily available information and without a need for genetic testing.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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