MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095003957 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-137628

A Retrospective Cohort Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Peri-Partum Tranexamic Acid for Women with Inherited Bleeding Disorders

2020· article· en· W3095003957 on OpenAlexaff
Kanza Naveed, Grace H. Tang, McKenzie Quevillon, Filomena Meffe, Rachel Martin, Jillian M. Baker, Michelle Sholzberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranexamic acidMedicineRetrospective cohort studyObstetricsPopulationCohortMaternal deathCohort studyPediatricsPregnancyGynecologySurgeryInternal medicineBlood loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Post-partum hemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal mortality. The risk of death from PPH is approximately 1 in 1000 deliveries(Carroli et al., 2008). Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a recommended treatment for women with severe PPH as it significantly reduces blood loss, need for surgical intervention and maternal mortality from hemorrhage (Abdul-Kadir et al., 2014; Ducloy-Bouthors et al., 2011; Li et al., 2017). Despite evidence supporting the use of TXA in this setting, there remain concerns and reluctance with its use stemming from the known increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in women post-partum (Tepper et al., 2014; James, 2009). Much of the data on TXA use has come from studies conducted on women without a bleeding disorder. Women with inherited bleeding disorders are at a substantially greater risk of PPH with maternal mortality from PPH estimated to be 10 times higher than average(Abdul-Kadir et al., 2014; James & Jamison, 2007). The safety and efficacy of peri-partum use of TXA in this population warrants study given their increased baseline risk of PPH and lower risk of thromboembolism (James & Jamison, 2007; Martin & Key, 2016). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all women with inherited bleeding disorders known to our Multidisciplinary Clinic for Women with Inherited Bleeding Disorders (MCWBD) who received TXA peri-partum between July 2014 and December 2019. The primary objective was to evaluate the frequency of VTE amongst patients with inherited bleeding disorders who received peri-partum TXA. The secondary objective was to evaluate the frequency of primary and secondary PPH among those who did and did not receive TXA. Research ethics board approval was obtained. Descriptive statistical analyses were used. Results: There were no VTE events in all MCWBD patients who received TXA peri-partum. A total of 40 patients with inherited bleeding disorders were managed from the beginning of pregnancy to labour and delivery under the care of the MCWBD between July 2014 and December 2019. The distribution of primary bleeding disorder diagnoses is 37.5% (15/40) for von Willebrand disease, 30% (12/40) had platelet function disorders, 22.5% (9/40) were symptomatic hemophilia carriers and 10% (4/40) had a rare factor deficiency (see Figure 1). Of these patients, 25% (10/40) had a personal previous history of PPH and 13% (5/40) had a family history of PPH. Among the 40 women, 75% (30/40) gave birth vaginally. TXA was provided to 95% (38/40) of patients at the onset of the second stage of labour, during the postpartum period (minimum of 10 days of oral TXA treatment), or both. Primary PPH occurred in 13% (5/38) of women who received prophylactic TXA and in 1 out 2 (50%) women without prophylactic TXA (see Table 1). There were no reports of secondary PPH. Conclusions: TXA appears to be a safe preventative treatment for PPH in patients with inherited bleeding disorders based on our retrospective study, with no additional risks of thromboembolism observed. Prospective evaluation of peripartum TXA use in this patient population is warranted to further assess its efficacy. Disclosures Martin: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP: Consultancy. Sholzberg:NovoNordisk: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Octapharma: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding.

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)0.006
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→