Vitamin K antagonists versus direct oral anticoagulants after cardiac surgery: a 31-country cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background About 10% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery have a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). Among these patients, uncertainty exists regarding the safest and most effective oral anticoagulant (OAC) during the postoperative period. Purpose To evaluate practice patterns regarding OAC early after cardiac surgery in patients with a preoperative history of AF and to compare the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Methods We conducted a nested cohort study within the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) III (NCT01561651). LAAOS III included patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery with a CHA2DS2-VASC ≥2. In this substudy, we examined patients without end-stage renal dysfunction (eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73m2) who were discharged on OAC. We evaluated bleeding and thromboembolism within 90 days postoperatively using logistic regression adjusting for CHA2DS2-VASC score. Results Recruitment started in 2012 and completed in 2018 in 113 centres in 31 countries. Of the 4811 patients enrolled in LAAOS III, 3725 (77%) were included in this substudy. Preoperatively, 58% of patients received OAC: 56% DOACs and 44% VKAs. At hospital discharge 23% received DOACs and 77% VKAs; 55% of patients on a DOAC at baseline were switched to a VKA while 5% of patients on a VKA were switched to a DOAC. Patients discharged on a DOAC were older, had a higher CHA2DS2-VASC, and were more likely to be male. Patients having undergone an isolated coronary bypass procedure were more likely prescribed DOACs than VKAs (41% vs 23%, p<0.001) whereas isolated non-mechanical valve patients were more likely to be prescribed VKAs (43% vs 28%, p<0.001). Switching from a DOAC to a VKA postoperatively occurred in 42% of patients In Australia/New Zealand, 49% in Europe, and 63% in North America. Major bleeding between 48 hours postoperatively and 30 days occurred in 1.5% in the DOAC group and 1.3% in the VKA group (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 0.60–2.15, p=0.69) while between 48 hours and 90 days, it occurred in 1.8% of patients in both groups (aOR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.54–1.17, p=0.91). Cardiac tamponade, the composite of stroke and systemic arterial embolism, and the composite of stroke, systemic arterial embolism and death did not differ significantly at 30 and 90 days between the DOAC and VKA groups. Conclusions VKAs was the dominant OAC used early after cardiac surgery, but postoperative OAC practices varied by region. After adjustment for CHA2DS2-VASC score, the early postoperative incidence of major bleeding and of the composite of stroke and systemic arterial embolism did not differ significantly when DOACs were compared with VKAs. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): CIHR, Heart and Stroke Foundation
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".