Continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulation for cardiac electronic device implantation: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients undergoing cardiac device implantation are taking direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC). Continuing DOAC during device implantation may increase periprocedural bleeding risk; however, interrupting DOACs may increase thromboembolic risk. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma and thromboembolism in patients who have their DOAC continued or interrupted for cardiac device implantation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and randomized controlled trial (CENTRAL) until December 2019 and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared outcomes after continuing or interrupting DOAC during cardiac device implantation. Independently and in duplicate, reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full text of potentially eligible studies. They then evaluated risk of bias and abstracted data. RCT data were pooled using a fixed-effect model. Quality of evidence was assessed using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Two RCTs, representing 763 patients, and three observational studies met eligibility criteria. In RCTs, continuing DOAC for device implantation compared to interrupting DOAC resulted in no significant difference in clinically significant pocket hematoma (2.1% vs 1.8%; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.44-3.05) or thromboembolism (0.03% vs 0.03%; RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.06-16.21). Quality of evidence for both outcomes was moderate due to imprecision. Observational studies showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing DOACs for device implantation results in little to no difference in the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma or thromboembolism. Given the ease of stopping and restarting DOACs, interrupting DOACs may be the preferred strategy for most patients. However, whenever continuous therapeutic anticoagulation is desired, DOAC continuation should be preferred over bridging with parenteral anticoagulation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".