The COMPASS trial: practical considerations for application after coronary artery bypass surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review the cardiovascular outcomes for people using anticoagulation strategies (COMPASS) trial with particular emphasis on patients with a history of remote coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and those who were enrolled 4-14 days after CABG. We provide practical guidance for selecting patients with the greatest potential to benefit who have acceptable bleeding risk. In particular, we address concerns about postoperative bleeding and discuss the relative merits of rivaroxaban and aspirin versus P2Y12 inhibition and aspirin. RECENT FINDINGS: The COMPASS trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban and aspirin reduce myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death in patients with coronary artery disease, without a demonstrated effect on bypass graft patency in the first postoperative year. SUMMARY: After CABG, cardiac surgeons should consider using the COMPASS regimen in patients at high risk of thrombosis whose risk of bleeding is acceptable. If used, the COMPASS regimen should be continued indefinitely in conjunction with other pharmacological risk reduction therapies to prevent long-term atherothrombotic events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".