Safety and Efficacy of Non–Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulant Use Early After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) initiated early after cardiac surgery. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (database inception to January 20, 2021), www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/, NOAC trial registries, and bibliographies of relevant guidelines and other reviews were used. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that initiated NOACs within the index hospitalization and that reported bleeding for the primary outcome were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 6 cohort studies, 1 RCT, and 3 ongoing RCTs were included. Most studies were single-centered, limited to postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting, and with 30-day follow-up; few studies included patients with isolated bioprosthetic valve replacement or valve repair. Bleeding risk varied (0%-28.6%), and all but one study showed no significantly higher risk with NOAC compared with warfarin. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Overall, NOACs were used in 26% to 37.5% of patients early after cardiac surgery. Starting a NOAC on postoperative day 4 appeared to have similar bleeding rates compared with warfarin, but clinical application is limited by heterogeneity of outcome definitions, confounding, and bias. Compared with warfarin, NOACs may have similar thromboembolism risk, reduced length of stay, and cost. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to guide NOAC use early after cardiac surgery. Three ongoing randomized trials will add to the literature and provide guidance for clinicians on whether, in whom, when, and how to use NOACs safely early after cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".