Periprocedural anticoagulation in the uninterrupted edoxaban vs. vitamin K antagonists for ablation of atrial fibrillation (ELIMINATE-AF) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This post hoc analysis of ELIMINATE-AF evaluated requirements of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and procedure-related bleeding in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing ablation with uninterrupted edoxaban or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to once-daily edoxaban 60 mg (or dose-reduced 30 mg) or dose-adjusted VKA (target international normalized ratio: 2.0-3.0). Uninterrupted anticoagulation was mandated for 21-28 days' pre-ablation and 90 days' post-ablation. During ablation, UFH administration targeted an activated clotting time (ACT) of 300-400 s. Periprocedural bleeding was differentiated between procedure-related (bleeding at puncture side, cardiac tamponade) and unrelated events. Of 614 randomized patients, 553 received study drug and underwent catheter ablation (edoxaban n = 375; VKA n = 178). The median (Q1-Q3) time from last dose to ablation procedure was 14.8 (13.3-16.5) vs. 16.5 (14.8-19.5) h (edoxaban vs. VKA group, respectively). Mean ACT (SD) ≥300 s was observed in 52% edoxaban- vs. 76% VKA-treated patients, despite a higher mean (SD) UFH dose in the edoxaban vs. VKA group [14 261 (6397) IU vs. 11 473 (4300) IU; exploratory P-value < 0.0001]. In the edoxaban group, 13 patients (3.5%) had procedure-related bleeds of whom 9 had received an UFH dose above the median (13 000 IU). In the VKA arm, 7 patients (3.9%) had procedure-related bleeds of whom 3 had received an UFH dose above the median (10 225 IU). CONCLUSION: The rate of procedure-related major/clinically relevant non-major bleeding did not differ between the treatment arms despite higher doses of UFH used with edoxaban vs. VKA to achieve a target ACT during AF ablation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".