Thromboprophylaxis Reduced Venous Thromboembolism in Sickle Cell Patients with Central Venous Access Devices: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sickle cell disease (SCD) induces a chronic prothrombotic state. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are commonly used for chronic transfusions and iron chelation in this population. CVADs are an additional venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk factor. The role of thromboprophylaxis in this setting is uncertain. The objectives are: (1) to determine whether thromboprophylaxis reduces VTE risk in SCD patients with CVAD and (2) to explore characteristics associated with VTE risk. We identified adults with SCD and CVAD intended for chronic use (≥3 months) at two comprehensive SCD centers. Thromboprophylaxis presence; type; intensity; and patient-, catheter-, and treatment-related VTE risk factors were recorded. Among 949 patients, 49 had a CVAD (25 without and 24 with VTE prophylaxis). Thromboprophylaxis type and intensity varied widely. Patients without thromboprophylaxis had higher VTE rates (rate ratio (RR) = 4.0 (95% confidence interval: 1.2−12.6), p = 0.02). Hydroxyurea was associated with lower VTE rates (RR = 20.5 (6.4−65.3), p < 0.001). PICC lines and Vortex and Xcela Power implantable devices were associated with higher rates compared with Port-a-Cath (RR = 5.8 (1.3−25.9), p = 0.02, and RR = 58.2 (15.0−225.0), p < 0.001, respectively). Thromboprophylaxis, hydroxyurea, and CVAD subtype were independently associated with VTE. The potentially protective role of thromboprophylaxis and hydroxyurea for VTE prevention in patients with SCD and CVAD merits further exploration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".