Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) experience more thromboembolic complications than the general population. We systematically searched and critically appraised all studies on the safety and efficacy of non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in adult patients with various forms of congenital heart disease. PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were used, with duplicate extraction of data and risk of bias assessment. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to assess study quality. Three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The total number of participants was 766, with a total follow-up of 923 patient-years. The majority of patients (77%) received a NOAC for atrial arrhythmias, while the remainder were prescribed NOACs for secondary (19%) or primary (4%) thromboprophylaxis. The annual rate of thromboembolic and major bleeding events was low: 0.98% (95% CI: 0.51-1.86) and 1.74% (95% CI: 0.86-3.49) respectively. In Fontan patients, the annual rate of thromboembolic and major bleeding events was 3.13% (95% CI: 1.18-8.03) and 3.17% (95% CI: 0.15-41.39) respectively. NOACs appear safe and effective in ACHD without mechanical prostheses. Additional studies are, however, needed to confirm their efficacy in complex ACHD, especially those with a Fontan-type circulation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".