MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201571219 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.021765

Thromboprophylaxis for Children Post‐Fontan Procedure: Insights From the UNIVERSE Study

2021· article· en· W3201571219 on OpenAlexaff
Brian W. McCrindle, Alan D. Michelson, Andrew H. Van Bergen, Estela Suzana Kleiman Horowitz, Juan Pablo Sandoval, Henri Justino, Kevin C. Harris, John L. Jefferies, Liza Miriam Pina, Colleen Peluso, Kimberly Nessel, Wentao Lu, Jennifer S. Li, Guillermo Chantada, Alejandro Peirone, Andrea Wirich Lenzi, Maria Angélica Binotto, Nagib Dahdah, Keisuke Sato, Hiroshi Ono, Koichi Sagawa, Jun Muneuchi, Hasri Samion, Sergio Escribano Ruiz, Alexis Palacios, Johannes M. P. J. Breur, Federico Gutierrez‐Iarraya, Teresa Álvarez, Dimpna C. Albert, Fernando Moya Rueda, Joseph Rossano, Kevin Hill, Haleh Heydarian, Robert A. Niebler, H. Wéber, Biagio A. Pietra, Andrew Van Bergen, Juan Alejos, Shaji C. Menon, Marie E. Steiner, Jonathan Cramer, Benjamin E. Reinking

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenBC Children's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEsperion TherapeuticsAbiomedEdwards LifesciencesAmryt PharmaAstraZeneca
KeywordsRivaroxabanMedicineDosingPulmonary embolismRegimenRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)AnesthesiaDabigatranInternal medicineWarfarinAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients with single-ventricle physiology who undergo the Fontan procedure are at risk for thrombotic events associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The UNIVERSE Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel liquid rivaroxaban formulation, using a body weight-adjusted dosing regimen, versus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in children post-Fontan. Methods and Results The UNIVERSE Study was a randomized, multicenter, 2-part, open-label study of rivaroxaban, in children who had undergone a Fontan procedure, to evaluate its dosing regimen, safety, and efficacy. Part A was the single-arm part of the study that determined the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and safety of rivaroxaban in 12 participants before proceeding to part B, whereby 100 participants were randomized 2:1 to open-label rivaroxaban versus ASA. The study period was 12 months. A total of 112 participants were enrolled across 35 sites in 10 countries. In part B, for safety outcomes, major bleeding occurred in one participant on rivaroxaban (epistaxis that required transfusion). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6% of participants on rivaroxaban versus 9% on ASA. Trivial bleeding occurred in 33% of participants on rivaroxaban versus 35% on ASA. For efficacy outcomes, 1 participant on rivaroxaban in part B had a pulmonary embolism (2% overall event rate); and for ASA, 1 participant had ischemic stroke and 2 had venous thrombosis (9% overall event rate). Conclusions In this study, participants who received rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis had a similar safety profile and fewer thrombotic events, albeit not statistically significant, compared with those in the ASA group. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02846532.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations93
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207