Post‐thrombotic syndrome in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with dabigatran or warfarin: A long‐term cross‐sectional follow‐up of RE‐COVER study patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that the direct factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban compared to warfarin reduces the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) after deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but this has not been evaluated for oral direct thrombin inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: To compare the long-term prevalence of PTS, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with acute DVT and/or pulmonary embolism (PE), randomized to treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in the phase III RE-COVER studies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional follow-up study of patients randomized in Canada, Norway, and Sweden. PTS was assessed by the patient-reported Villalta scale (PRV) and HRQoL by EQ-5D and VEINES-QOL/Sym. RESULTS: We included 349 patients between December 2015 and November 2018; 166 were treated with dabigatran and 183 with warfarin. DVT (+/- PE) was index event in 255 patients, whereas 94 patients had PE only. Mean time from index event was 8.7 (standard deviation 1.4) years. PTS was diagnosed in 63% of patients with DVT and in 46% of patients with PE only, and did not differ between the treatment groups; the crude odds ratio (OR) for PTS in patients treated with dabigatran compared with warfarin was 1.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.8) after DVT and 1.2 (95% CI 0.5-2.6) after PE only. The prevalence of recurrent VTE was 21% in both treatment groups. HRQoL scores did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: In this long-term cross-sectional study, the prevalence of PTS, recurrent VTE, and HRQoL were similar in patients treated with dabigatran and warfarin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".